" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

111–491 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5136 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 21, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

56–423 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–491 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5136 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 21, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LEONARD BOSWELL, Iowa 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

PAUL ARCANGELI, Staff Director 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Explanation of the Committee Amendments ........................................................ 1 

Purpose of the Legislation ...................................................................................... 2 

Relationship of Discretionary Authorization to Appropriations .......................... 2 

Summary of Authorizations in the Bill .................................................................. 2 

Summary Table of Authorizations ...................................................................... 4 

Budget Authority Implication ................................................................................. 14 

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 18 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 21 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 21 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 21 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 21 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 24 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 24 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 27 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unmanned aerial vehicles ........ 27 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 27 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 27 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 30 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team non-line-of-sight launch system .......................................................................................................... 30 

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System ................................................. 30 

Javelin Block 1 command launch unit requirements ............................. 30 

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Modifications ......................................... 30 

Stinger missile service life enhancement program ................................. 31 

Surface launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile system ... 31 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 31 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 31 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 36 

Modular handgun system ......................................................................... 36 

Paladin Integrated Management program .............................................. 36 

Stryker vehicles ......................................................................................... 36 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 37 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 37 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 41 

Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative .................................................. 41 

MK281 target practice rounds .................................................................. 41 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 41 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 41 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 52 

Defense Advanced GPS Receivers ............................................................ 52 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team network integration kits .......... 52 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team small unmanned ground vehicles .......................................................................................................... 53 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team training/logistics/management . 53 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors ...... 53 

Ground Soldier System acquisition strategy ........................................... 54 

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles ....................................... 54 

High-resolution three dimensional topographic data ............................. 55 

Intelligent Munitions System remote control units ................................ 55 

Joint Tactical Radio System hand-held radios ....................................... 55 

Non-system training device program ....................................................... 56 

Warfighter Information Network–Tactical Increment 2 ........................ 56 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ........................................... 57 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 57 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 59 

Joint counter remote control improvised explosive device electronic 

warfare .................................................................................................... 59 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 59 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 59 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 65 

Department of Navy tactical aircraft inventory ..................................... 65 

UH–1Y/AH–1Z rotorcraft upgrade program ............................................ 66 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 66 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 66 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 69 

Littoral Combat Ship Module weapons ................................................... 69 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 69 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 69 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 72 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 72 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 75 

U.S. Navy shipbuilding ............................................................................. 75 

Aircraft carriers ..................................................................................... 75 

DDG 51 class destroyer ......................................................................... 75 

DDG 1000 class destroyer ..................................................................... 76 

Littoral Combat Ship ............................................................................. 76 

Maritime Landing Platform .................................................................. 77 

Ohio-class replacement program .......................................................... 77 

U.S. shipbuilding industrial base ............................................................. 78 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 79 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 79 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 88 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 88 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 93 

Marine Corps communications switching and control systems ............. 93 

Marine Corps joint tactical radio systems ............................................... 93 

Marine Corps M88A2 recovery vehicles .................................................. 93 

Marine Corps small unmanned ground vehicles .................................... 93 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 94 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 94 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 101 

F–35 modifications .................................................................................... 101 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 101 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 101 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 103 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 103 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 106 

Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line ...................................... 106 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 107 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 107 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 112 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 112 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 118 

Advance procurement for AN/TPY–2 X-band radars ............................. 118 

Common data link ..................................................................................... 118 

Fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense interceptors .......................... 119 

Lighter-than-air vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ....................................................................................................... 119 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 120 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 120 

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations ................................. 120 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 120 

Section 111—Procurement of Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

Increment One Equipment ....................................................................... 120 

Section 112—Report on Army Battlefield Network Plans and Programs 120 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 120 

Section 121—Incremental Funding for Procurement of Large Naval 

Vessels ........................................................................................................ 120 

Section 122—Multiyear Procurement of F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and EA– 

18G Aircraft ............................................................................................... 121 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

Section 123—Report on Naval Force Structure and Missile Defense ....... 121 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 122 

Section 131—Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling for F–22 

Fighter Aircraft ......................................................................................... 122 

Subtitle E—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 122 

Section 141—Limitation on Procurement of F–35 Lightning II Aircraft . 122 

Section 142—Limitations on Biometric Systems Funds ............................ 122 

Section 143—Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Initiatives Database ............................................................................................................. 123 

Section 144—Study on Lightweight Body Armor Solutions ...................... 123 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 123 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 123 

Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .................................... 125 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 125 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 136 

Abrams tank modernization ..................................................................... 136 

Biometrics enabled intelligence ................................................................ 136 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle modernization ................................................. 136 

Cellulose nanocomposites for Army infrastructure and troop protection .......................................................................................................... 137 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team ..................................................... 137 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors ...... 138 

Focus for Minerva research ...................................................................... 139 

Future Combat Systems system-of-systems engineering and program 

management ........................................................................................... 139 

Ground Combat Vehicle program ............................................................ 139 

Maingate tactical network architecture .................................................. 141 

Medium Extended Air Defense System ................................................... 141 

Military engineering advanced technology .............................................. 142 

Non-line-of-sight launch system ............................................................... 142 

Paladin Integrated Management program .............................................. 142 

Self-inerting munitions technology development .................................... 143 

Social science research capacity ............................................................... 143 

Stryker vehicle improvised explosive device mitigation technology ...... 143 

Tactical electronic surveillance systems .................................................. 144 

Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ..................................... 144 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 144 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 157 

Composite deckhouse design for DDG 51 flight III class ships ............. 157 

Development of hybrid multi-functional composites for submarine 

structures ............................................................................................... 157 

Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended Range Munition .......................................................................................................... 157 

Future integrated nuclear power systems ............................................... 158 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System .............................................. 158 

Marine Corps military fleet simulation computer co-simulation .......... 158 

Marine operations, Scripps Institute ....................................................... 159 

Marine personnel carrier .......................................................................... 159 

Navy non-line-of-sight launch system development ............................... 159 

Navy Unmanned Combat Air System ..................................................... 160 

Next Generation Enterprise Network ..................................................... 160 

Photonic digital beamforming systems .................................................... 160 

Small diameter bomb increment II .......................................................... 161 

Ultra High Frequency Hosted Payloads program .................................. 161 

VH–(XX) acquisition program and VH–3D/VH–60N legacy fleet 

sustainment ............................................................................................ 162 

Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .............................. 162 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 162 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 174 

Conversion of excess ballistic missiles for space transportation uses ... 174 

Cyber Boot Camp ...................................................................................... 174 

Defense applications of commercial satellites ......................................... 175 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle common upper stage engine ....... 175 

F–35 aircraft .............................................................................................. 175 

Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle and Broad Area Maritime 

Surveillance system commonality ........................................................ 178 

Metals Affordability Initiative .................................................................. 178 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System . 179 

Next-generation military satellite communications technology development .................................................................................................... 180 

Non-volatile hardened memory ................................................................ 180 

Operationally Responsive Space .............................................................. 180 

Space Based Space Surveillance .............................................................. 181 

Star tracker technology ............................................................................. 181 

Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for Space ..................... 181 

Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................... 182 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 182 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 196 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and defense against sea-based missile 

attacks .................................................................................................... 196 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National 

Defense University ................................................................................ 196 

Counter-ideology programs ....................................................................... 197 

Cognitive computing efforts ...................................................................... 197 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ......................................... 198 

Digital media study ................................................................................... 199 

Directed energy research programs ......................................................... 199 

Environmental management information systems ................................. 200 

Environmental Security Technical Certification Program ..................... 200 

Federal Voting Assistance Program ........................................................ 201 

Ground combat uniform research and development ............................... 201 

Intergovernmental Value Added Network .............................................. 202 

Investment review process for human dynamics activities ................... 202 

Israeli cooperative programs .................................................................... 203 

K–12 education in computer sciences and mathematics ........................ 203 

Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology Sharing ................................... 204 

Management of defense basic research ................................................... 205 

Mechanism to provide funds for defense laboratories ............................ 206 

Missile Defense Agency special programs ............................................... 206 

Missile defense command, control, and communications ....................... 206 

Multi-Agency Collaboration Environment ............................................... 207 

Over-the-horizon broadcast extension capability .................................... 207 

Regional missile defense plans ................................................................. 207 

Role of non-lethal weapons ....................................................................... 208 

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce ............. 210 

Special Operations Technology Development ......................................... 211 

Test Resource Management Center budget certification briefing ......... 211 

Trusted computing in defense systems .................................................... 211 

Unmanned systems manning ................................................................... 212 

Unmanned system technology development ........................................... 212 

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 212 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 212 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 214 

Joint test and evaluation program ........................................................... 214 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 214 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 214 

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 214 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 214 

Section 211—Report Requirements for Replacement Program of the 

Ohio-Class Ballistic Submarine ............................................................... 214 

Section 212—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for F–35 Lightning 

II Aircraft Program ................................................................................... 215 

Section 213—Inclusion in Annual Budget Request and Future-Years 

Defense Program of Sufficient Amounts for Continued Development 

and Procurement of Competitive Propulsion System for F–35 Lightning II Aircraft .......................................................................................... 215 

Section 214—Separate Program Elements Required for Research and 

Development of Joint Light Tactical Vehicle .......................................... 215 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 216 

Section 221—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Missile Defenses 

in Europe .................................................................................................... 216 

Section 222—Repeal of Prohibition of Certain Contracts by Missile 

Defense Agency with Foreign Entities .................................................... 216 

Section 223—Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense in Europe . 217 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

Section 224—Homeland Defense Hedging Policy ....................................... 217 

Section 225—Independent Assessment of the Plan for Defense of the 

Homeland against the Threat of Ballistic Missiles ................................ 218 

Section 226—Study on Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities of the 

United States ............................................................................................. 218 

Section 227—Reports on standard missile system ..................................... 218 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 218 

Section 231—Report on Analysis of Alternatives and Program Requirements for the Ground Combat Vehicle Program .................................... 218 

Section 232—Cost Benefit Analysis of Future Tank-Fired Munitions ..... 218 

Section 233—Annual Comptroller General Report on the VH–(XX) Presidential Helicopter Acquisition Program ................................................. 219 

Section 234—Joint Assessment of the Joint Effects Targeting System ... 219 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 219 

Section 241—Escalation of Force Capabilities ........................................... 219 

Section 242—Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection Features 

During Research and Development of Defense Systems ........................ 219 

Section 243—Pilot Program on Collaborative Energy Security ................ 219 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 219 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 219 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 247 

Budget Request Adjustments .......................................................................... 247 

Base Operations Support ............................................................................. 248 

C–130 Force Structure Adjustments ........................................................... 248 

Corrosion Control and Prevention ............................................................... 249 

Defense Contract Audit Agency General Counsel ...................................... 249 

Environmental Restoration at Formerly Used Defense Sites ................... 250 

Execution of Readiness Funding ................................................................. 250 

Industrial Base Fund .................................................................................... 251 

Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis ................... 251 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative .................................. 251 

Training and Recertification of the Acquisition Workforce ....................... 251 

Energy Issues .................................................................................................... 252 

Department of Defense Alternative Fuel Use ............................................ 252 

National Security Impacts of Petroleum Refining ..................................... 252 

Workplace and Depot Issues ............................................................................ 252 

Army Cooperative Arrangements ................................................................ 252 

Contractor Support to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Organization .............................................................................................. 253 

Submarine Maintenance Workload ............................................................. 253 

Use of Temporary Shipyard Workforce for Nuclear Maintenance ............ 254 

Readiness Issues ............................................................................................... 254 

Air Force’s Ability to Train on Core Mission Competencies ...................... 254 

Analysis of the Use of Commercial F–5 Aggressor Aircraft for Air 

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Pilot Training ...................................... 255 

Availability of Full-Time Trainers in the Army ......................................... 256 

Aviation Assets for National Guard ............................................................ 257 

Completion of Annual Training Requirements for Army and Marine 

Corps .......................................................................................................... 257 

Criticality of Pre-Deployment Language Training ..................................... 258 

F–35 Lightning II Aircraft and National Guard ........................................ 259 

Language, Cultural Awareness, and Regional Expertise .......................... 259 

Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting .......................... 259 

Ship Maintenance Industrial Base Support ............................................... 260 

Ship Material Readiness .............................................................................. 261 

Simulation Training for F–35 Joint Strike Fighter ................................... 262 

Surface Ship Life Cycle Management ......................................................... 263 

Training for Global Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................. 263 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 264 

Air Force Food Transformation Initiative ................................................... 264 

Army Post Laundry Facilities ...................................................................... 265 

Army Reporting Requirements .................................................................... 266 

Human Terrain System ................................................................................ 266 

National Guard Support for Charitable Organizations ............................. 266 

Notification of Use of Authority to Expedite Background Investigations 267 

Operation and Support Costs for Non-Standard Items of Equipment ..... 267 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

Private Security Guards Functions to Be Performed by Civilian Employees ........................................................................................................ 267 

Sale of Arsenal Products outside the Department of Defense .................. 268 

Security Clearance Reform ........................................................................... 268 

Supply Chain Management .......................................................................... 269 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 269 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 269 

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 269 

Subtitle B—Energy and Environmental Provisions ...................................... 270 

Section 311—Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

Certain Costs in Connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition 

Plant, Minnesota ....................................................................................... 270 

Section 312—Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated Penalties in Connection with Naval Air Station, Brunswick, 

Maine .......................................................................................................... 270 

Section 313—Testing and Certification Plan for Operational Use of 

an Aviation Biofuel Derived from Materials That Do Not Compete 

with Food Stocks ....................................................................................... 270 

Section 314—Report Identifying Hybrid or Electric Propulsion Systems 

and Other Fuel-Saving Technologies for Incorporation into Tactical 

Motor Vehicles ........................................................................................... 270 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 270 

Section 321—Technical Amendments to Requirement for Service Contract Inventory ........................................................................................... 270 

Section 322—Repeal of Conditions on Expansion of Functions Performed under Prime Vendor Contracts for Depot-Level Maintenance 

and Repair ................................................................................................. 271 

Section 323—Pilot Program on Best Value for Contracts for Private 

Security Functions .................................................................................... 271 

Section 324—Standards and Certification for Private Security Contractors .............................................................................................................. 272 

Section 325—Prohibition on Establishing Goals or Quotas for Conversion of Functions to Performance by Department of Defense Civilian 

Employees .................................................................................................. 272 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 272 

Section 331—Revision to Reporting Requirement Relating to Operation 

and Financial Support for Military Museums ........................................ 272 

Section 332—Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to Corrosion 

Prevention Projects and Activities ........................................................... 272 

Section 333—Modification and Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................................... 273 

Section 334—Report on Air Sovereignty Alert Mission ............................. 273 

Section 335—Report on the SEAD/DEAD Mission Requirements for 

the Air Force .............................................................................................. 273 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority ................................... 274 

Section 341—Permanent Authority to Accept and Use Landing Fees 

Charged for Use of Domestic Military Airfields by Civil Aircraft ......... 274 

Section 342—Improvement and Extension of Arsenal Support Program 

Initiative ..................................................................................................... 274 

Section 343—Extension of Authority to Reimburse Expenses for Certain Navy Mess Operations ...................................................................... 274 

Section 344—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Army Human 

Terrain System .......................................................................................... 275 

Section 345—Limitation on Obligation of Funds Pending Submission 

of Classified Justification Material .......................................................... 275 

Section 346—Limitation on Retirement of C–130 Aircraft from Air 

Force Inventory ......................................................................................... 275 

Section 347—Commercial Sale of Small Arms Ammunition in Excess 

of Military Requirements .......................................................................... 275 

Section 348—Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force Structure 

Announcement Implementation. .............................................................. 275 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 276 

Section 351—Expedited Processing of Background Investigations for 

Certain Individuals ................................................................................... 276 

Section 352—Adoption of Military Working Dogs by Family Members 

of Deceased or Seriously Wounded Members of the Armed Forces 

who Were Handlers of the Dogs ............................................................... 276 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

Section 353—Revision to Authorities Relating to Transportation of Civilian Passengers and Commercial Cargoes by Department of Defense when Space Unavailable on Commercial Lines ............................ 276 

Section 354—Technical Correction to Obsolete Reference Relating to 

Use of Flexible Hiring Authority to Facilitate Performance of Certain 

Department of Defense Functions by Civilian Employees ..................... 277 

Section 355—Inventory and Study of Budget Modeling and Simulation 

Tools ........................................................................................................... 277 

Section 356—Sense of Congress regarding Continued Importance of 

High-Altitude Aviation Training Site, Colorado ..................................... 277 

Section 357—Department of Defense Study on Simulated Tactical 

Flight Training in a Sustained G Environment ..................................... 277 

Section 358—Study of Effects of New Construction of Obstructions 

on Military Installations and Operations ................................................ 277 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 278 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 278 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 278 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 278 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 278 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 278 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 279 

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 279 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support 

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 279 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 279 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2011 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status Technicians .......................................................................................... 280 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to 

Be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................ 281 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 281 

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 281 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 283 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 283 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 283 

Army Freedom Team Salute Program ........................................................ 283 

Award of Prisoner-of-War Medal to Service Members Held at 

Wauwilermoos, Switzerland ..................................................................... 284 

Committee’s Concerns with the DOD Report on Child Custody and 

Database to Track the Number of Cases Involving Child Custody 

Disputes of Members of the Armed Forces ............................................. 284 

Fit, but Unsuitable Separations .................................................................. 285 

Military Leave for Training ......................................................................... 285 

Report on Medal of Honor Award Process .................................................. 286 

Retention of Military Technicians who Lose Dual Status in the Selected 

Reserve due to Combat-Related Disability .............................................. 286 

Review of Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients from World 

War I .......................................................................................................... 287 

Review of the House Committee on Armed Services Report on Professional Military Education ......................................................................... 287 

Transferability of Individualized Education Programs .............................. 288 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 288 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy Generally ............................................. 288 

Section 501—Age for Health Care Professional Appointments and Mandatory Retirements .................................................................................... 288 

Section 502—Authority for Appointment of Warrant Officers in the 

Grade of W–1 by Commission and Standardization of Warrant Officer 

Appointing Authority ................................................................................ 288 

Section 503—Nondisclosure of Information from Discussions, Deliberations, Notes, and Records of Special Selection Boards ........................... 288 

Section 504—Administrative Removal of Officers from List of Officers 

Recommended for Promotion .................................................................... 288 

Section 505—Eligibility of Officers to Serve on Boards of Inquiry for 

Separation of Regular Officers for Substandard Performance and 

Other Reasons ........................................................................................... 289 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

Section 506—Temporary Authority to Reduce Minimum Length of Active Service as a Commissioned Officer Required for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer ............................................................................... 289 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 289 

Section 511—Preseparation Counseling for Members of the Reserve 

Components ............................................................................................... 289 

Section 512—Military Correction Board Remedies for National Guard 

Members ..................................................................................................... 289 

Section 513—Removal of Statutory Distribution Limits on Navy Reserve Flag Officer Allocation .................................................................... 289 

Section 514—Assignment of Air Force Reserve Military Technicians 

(Dual Status) to Positions outside Air Force Reserve Unit Program .... 290 

Section 515—Temporary Authority for Temporary Employment of NonDual Status Military Technicians ............................................................ 290 

Section 516—Revised Structure and Functions of Reserve Forces Policy 

Board .......................................................................................................... 290 

Section 517—Merit Systems Protection Board and Judicial Remedies 

for National Guard Technicians ............................................................... 290 

Subtitle C—Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements ............................... 291 

Section 521—Technical Revisions to Definition of Joint Matters for 

Purposes of Joint Officer Management ................................................... 291 

Section 522—Changes to the Process Involving Promotion Boards for 

Joint Qualified Officers and Officers with Joint Staff Experience ........ 291 

Subtitle D—General Services Authorities ...................................................... 291 

Section 531—Extension of Temporary Authority to Order Retired Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty in High-Demand, LowDensity Assignments ................................................................................. 291 

Section 532—Correction of Military Records .............................................. 292 

Section 533—Modification of Certificate of Release or Discharge from 

Active Duty (DD Form 214) to Specifically Identify a Space for Inclusion of Email Address ............................................................................... 292 

Section 534—Recognition of Role of Female Members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense Review of Military Occupational 

Specialties Available to Female Members ............................................... 292 

Subtitle E—Military Justice and Legal Matters ............................................ 292 

Section 541—Continuation of Warrant Officers on Active Duty to Complete Disciplinary Action .......................................................................... 292 

Section 542—Enhanced Authority to Punish Contempt in Military Justice Proceedings ......................................................................................... 293 

Section 543—Limitations on Use in Personnel Action of Information 

Contained in Criminal Investigative Report or in the Index Maintained for Law Enforcement Retrieval and Analysis ............................. 293 

Section 544—Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents 

who Are Members of the Armed Forces Deployed in Support of a 

Contingency Operation ............................................................................. 293 

Section 545—Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic Violence Programs .......................................................................................... 293 

Section 546—Public Release of Restricted Annex of Department of Defense Report of the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood Pertaining to Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator of the Attack .............. 293 

Subtitle F—Member Education and Training Opportunities and Administration ......................................................................................................... 294 

Section 551—Repayment of Education Loan Repayment Benefits ........... 294 

Section 552—Active Duty Obligation for Graduates of the Military 

Service Academies Participating in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program ............................ 294 

Section 553—Waiver of Maximum Age Limitation on Admission to 

Service Academies for Certain Enlisted Members who Served during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom ................... 294 

Section 554—Report of Feasibility and Cost of Expanding Enrollment 

Authority of Community College of the Air Force to Include Additional Members of the Armed Forces ....................................................... 294 

Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education ................................................. 295 

Section 561—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 

Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces 

and Department of Defense Civilian Employees .................................... 295 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

Section 562—Enrollment of Dependents of Members of the Armed 

Forces who Reside in Temporary Housing in Department of Defense 

Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools ..................... 295 

Subtitle H—Decorations, Awards, and Commemorations ............................. 295 

Section 571—Notification Requirement for Determination Made in Response to Review of Proposal for Award of a Medal of Honor Not 

Previously Submitted in Timely Fashion ................................................ 295 

Section 572—Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of Members of the Armed Forces .......................................................................... 295 

Section 573—Department of Defense Recognition of Children of Members of the Armed Forces .......................................................................... 296 

Section 574—Clarification of Persons Eligible for Award of Bronze Star 

Medal .......................................................................................................... 296 

Section 575—Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans who Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation ..................................................... 296 

Section 576—Authorization for Award of Medal of Honor to Certain 

Members of the Army for Acts of Valor during the Civil War, Korean 

War, or Vietnam War ................................................................................ 296 

Section 577—Authorization and Request for Award of DistinguishedService Cross to Jay C. Copley for Acts of Valor during the Vietnam 

War ............................................................................................................. 296 

Section 578—Program to Commemorate 60th Anniversary of the Korean War .................................................................................................... 297 

Subtitle I—Military Family Readiness Matters ............................................ 297 

Section 581—Appointment of Additional Member of Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council ................................................ 297 

Section 582—Director of the Office of Community Support for Military 

Families with Special Needs .................................................................... 297 

Section 583—Pilot Program of Personalized Career Development Counseling for Military Spouses ....................................................................... 297 

Section 584—Modification of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program ....... 297 

Section 585—Importance of Office of Community Support for Military 

Families with Special Needs .................................................................... 298 

Section 586—Comptroller General Report on Department of Defense 

Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special 

Needs .......................................................................................................... 298 

Section 587—Comptroller General Report on Exceptional Family Member Program ............................................................................................... 298 

Section 588—Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense 

Military Spouse Employment Programs .................................................. 298 

Section 589—Report on Department of Defense Military Spouse Education Programs ......................................................................................... 298 

Subtitle J—Other Matters ............................................................................... 299 

Section 591—Establishment of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

Units for Students in Grades above Sixth Grade ................................... 299 

Section 592—Increase in Number of Private Sector Civilians Authorized for Admission to National Defense University ............................... 299 

Section 593—Admission of Defense Industry Civilians to Attend United 

States Air Force Institute of Technology ................................................. 299 

Section 594—Date for Submission of Annual Report on Department 

of Defense STARBASE Program .............................................................. 299 

Section 595—Extension of Deadline for Submission of Final Report 

of Military Leadership Diversity Commission ........................................ 299 

Section 596—Enhanced Authority for Members of the Armed Forces 

and Department of Defense and Coast Guard Civilian Employees 

and their Families to Accept Gifts from Non-Federal Entities ............. 299 

Section 597—Report on Performance and Improvements of Transition 

Assistance Program ................................................................................... 300 

Section 598—Sense of Congress regarding Assisting Members of the 

Armed Forces to Participate in Apprenticeship Programs .................... 300 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 300 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 300 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 301 

Career Retention Bonus ............................................................................... 301 

Critical Language and Cultural Training of Special Operations Forces .. 301 

Local Procurement of Fresh Meat, Poultry, Seafood, Fish, and Produce 

by Commissary and Exchange Stores ...................................................... 302 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

Procurement of Locally Caught Seafood and Fresh-Water Fish by Commissaries .................................................................................................... 303 

Reserve Retirement ...................................................................................... 303 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 303 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 303 

Section 601—Fiscal Year 2011 Increase in Military Basic Pay ................ 303 

Section 602—Basic Allowance for Housing for Two-Member Couples 

when One or Both Members Are on Sea Duty ........................................ 304 

Section 603—Allowances for Purchase of Required Uniforms and Equipment ............................................................................................................ 304 

Section 604—Increase in Amount of Family Separation Allowance ......... 304 

Section 605—One-Time Special Compensation for Transition of Assistants Providing Aid and Attendance Care to Members of the Uniformed Services with Catastrophic Injuries or Illnesses ........................ 304 

Section 606—Expansion of Definition of Senior Enlisted Member to 

Include Senior Enlisted Member Serving within a Combatant Command ........................................................................................................... 304 

Section 607—Ineligibility of Certain Federal Civilian Employees for 

Reservist Income Replacement Payments on Account of Availability 

of Comparable Benefits under Another Program ................................... 305 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 305 

Section 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities for Reserve Forces ................................................................. 305 

Section 612—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities for Health Care Professionals .............................................. 305 

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 

for Nuclear Officers ................................................................................... 305 

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37 

Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities ........ 305 

Section 615—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 

of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays ........................................... 306 

Section 616—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 

of Referral Bonuses ................................................................................... 306 

Section 617—Treatment of Officers Transferring between Armed Forces 

for Receipt of Aviation Career Special Pay ............................................. 306 

Section 618—Increase in Maximum Amount of Special Pay for Duty 

Subject to Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger or for Duty in Foreign 

Area Designated as an Imminent Danger Area ..................................... 306 

Section 619—Special Payment to Members of the Armed Forces and 

Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Killed or Wounded 

in Attacks Directed at Members or Employees outside of Combat 

Zone, Including Those Killed or Wounded in Certain 2009 Attacks ..... 306 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 307 

Section 631—Extension of Authority to Provide Travel and Transportation Allowances for Inactive Duty Training outside of Normal Commuting Distances ....................................................................................... 307 

Section 632—Travel and Transportation Allowances for Attendance of 

Designated Persons at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Events ................ 307 

Section 633—Mileage Reimbursement for Use of Privately Owned Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 307 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits ............................................ 308 

Section 641—Elimination of Cap on Retired Pay Multiplier for Members with Greater than 30 Years of Service who Retire for Disability . 308 

Section 642—Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action ..................................... 308 

Section 643—Elimination of the Age Requirement for Health Care Benefits for Non-Regular Service Retirees .................................................... 308 

Section 644—Clarification of Effect of Ordering Reserve Component 

Member to Active Duty to Receive Authorized Medical Care on Reducing Eligibility Age for Receipt of Non-Regular Service Retired 

Pay .............................................................................................................. 308 

Section 645—Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Recipients of 

Pre-Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Affected by Required Offset for 

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation ............................................. 308 

Section 646—Payment Date for the Retired and Retainer Pay ................ 309 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ........................................................................... 309 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

Section 651—Shared Construction Costs for Shopping Malls or Similar 

Facilities Containing a Commissary Store and One or More Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Activities ........................................ 309 

Section 652—Addition of Definition of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

Telephone Services for Use in Contracts to Provide Such Services 

for Military Personnel Serving in Combat Zones ................................... 309 

Section 653—Feasibility Study on Establishment of Full Exchange 

Store in the Northern Mariana Islands ................................................... 309 

Subtitle F—Alternative Career Track Pilot Program .................................... 310 

Section 661—Pilot Program to Evaluate Alternative Career Track for 

Commissioned Officers to Facilitate an Increased Commitment to 

Academic and Professional Education and Career-Broadening Assignments .......................................................................................................... 310 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 312 

Section 671—Participation of Members of the Armed Forces Health 

Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program in Active 

Duty Health Profession Loan Repayment Program ............................... 312 

Section 672—Retention of Enlistment, Reenlistment, and Student Loan 

Benefits Received by Military Technicians (Dual Status) ..................... 312 

Section 673—Cancellation of Loans of Members of the Armed Forces 

Made from Student Loan Funds .............................................................. 312 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 312 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 312 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 314 

Comparative Cognitive Test Study .............................................................. 314 

Comparative Effectiveness of Neuroimaging Modalities on the Detection of Traumatic Brain Injury ................................................................ 314 

Continuation of Health Insurance for Reservists on Active Duty ............ 314 

Delays in Awarding New TRICARE Contracts .......................................... 315 

Development of Non-Addictive Topical Pain Therapeutics ....................... 315 

Exposure Registry Feasibility Study ........................................................... 316 

Feasibility of TRICARE Prime in Certain Commonwealths and Territories of the United States ........................................................................ 316 

Former Military Medics and Corpsmen ...................................................... 316 

Genitourinary Trauma in the Military ....................................................... 316 

Health Information Technology Interoperability between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs .................... 316 

Medical Technology and Spectrum Sharing ............................................... 317 

Medical Training for Chemical-Biological Casualties ................................ 317 

Outreach Tools Using an Interactive Virtual Agent .................................. 317 

Pre-Deployment Counseling for Unmarried Service Members with Dependent Children ....................................................................................... 317 

Study on the Treatment of Service Members of the Active and Reserve 

Component for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ..................................... 318 

Suicide and the Individual Ready Reserve ................................................. 318 

TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System ................................. 319 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 319 

Subtitle A—Improvements to Health Benefits .............................................. 319 

Section 701—Extension of Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health 

Care Costs .................................................................................................. 319 

Section 702—Extension of Dependent Coverage under TRICARE ........... 319 

Section 703—Survivor Dental Benefits ....................................................... 319 

Section 704—Aural Screenings for Members of the Armed Forces .......... 319 

Section 705—Temporary Prohibition on Increase in Copayments under 

Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy Benefits Program ...................... 320 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 320 

Section 711—Adminisitration of TRICARE ................................................ 320 

Section 712—Updated Terminology for the Army Medical Service 

Corps .......................................................................................................... 320 

Section 713—Clarification of Licensure Requirements Applicable to 

Military Health-Care Professionals who Are Members of the National 

Guard Performing Duty while in Title 32 Status ................................... 320 

Section 714—Annual Report on Joint Health Care Facilities of the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs ......... 320 

Section 715—Improvements to Oversight of Medical Training for Medical Corps Officers ..................................................................................... 321 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

Section 716—Study on Reimbursement for Costs of Health Care Provided to Ineligible Individuals .................................................................. 321 

Section 717—Limitation on Transfer of Funds to Department of Defense–Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Project ................................................................................................. 321 

Section 718—Enterprise Risk Assessment of Health Information Technology Programs ........................................................................................ 321 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 321 

Section 721—Improving Aural Protection for Members of the Armed 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 321 

Section 722—Comprehensive Policy on Neurocognitive Assessment by 

the Military Health System ...................................................................... 321 

Section 723—National Casualty Care Research Center ............................ 322 

Section 724—Report on Feasibility of Study on Breast Cancer among 

Female Members of the Armed Forces .................................................... 322 

Section 725—Assesment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by Military 

Occupation ................................................................................................. 322 

Section 726—Visiting NIH Neuroscience Fellowship Program ................. 322 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 322 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 322 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 323 

Acquisition Oversight for TRICARE Management Agency ....................... 323 

Acquisition Process for Information Technology ........................................ 323 

Advanced Technology Clusters .................................................................... 324 

Application of Berry Amendment to Tents and Related Items ................. 325 

Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan ............... 325 

Competition Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Federal Prison 

Industries ................................................................................................... 325 

Denial of Award Fees to Contractors for Jeopardizing Government Personnel ......................................................................................................... 326 

Employment Impact of Military Construction ............................................ 327 

Matters Relating to the Common Database for Tracking Contracts and 

Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan ...................................... 327 

Titanium Supply for Defense Uses .............................................................. 329 

Undefinitized Contractual Actions .............................................................. 330 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 330 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 330 

Section 801—Disclosure to Litigation Support Contractors ...................... 330 

Section 802—Designation of F135 and F136 Engine Development and 

Procurement Programs as Major Subprograms ...................................... 330 

Section 803—Conforming Amendments Relating to Inclusion of Major 

Subprograms to Major Defense Acquisition Programs under Various 

Acquisition-Related Requirements ........................................................... 331 

Section 804—Enhancement of Department of Defense Authority to Respond to Combat and Safety Emergencies through Rapid Acquisition 

and Deployment of Urgently Needed Supplies ....................................... 331 

Section 805—Prohibition on Contracts with Entities Engaging in Commercial Activity in the Energy Sector of Iran ......................................... 331 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ......................................................................................... 332 

Section 811—Extension of Authority to Procure Certain Fibers; Limitation on Specification .................................................................................. 332 

Section 812—Small Arms Production Industrial Base Matters ................ 332 

Section 813—Additional Definition Relating to Production of Specialty 

Metals within the United States .............................................................. 332 

Subtitle C—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 332 

Section 821—Studies to Analyze Alternative Models for Acquisition 

and Funding of Technologies Supporting Network-Centric Operations .......................................................................................................... 332 

Section 822—Annual Joint Report and Comptroller General Review 

on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan ................................................. 333 

Section 823—Extension of Comptroller General Review and Report on 

Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan ...................................................... 333 

Section 824—Interim Report on Review of Impact of Covered Subsidies 

on Acquisition of KC–45 Aircraft ............................................................. 333 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

Section 825—Reports on Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System .............................................................................................. 333 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 334 

Section 831—Extension of Authority for Defense Acquisition Challenge 

Program ...................................................................................................... 334 

Section 832—Energy Savings Performance Contracts ............................... 334 

Section 833—Consideration of Sustainable Practices in Procurement 

of Products and Services ........................................................................... 334 

Section 834—Definition of Materials Critical to National Security ......... 334 

Section 835—Determination of Strategic or Critical Rare Earth Materials for Defense Applications .................................................................. 335 

Section 836—Review of National Security Exception to Competition ...... 335 

Section 837—Inclusion of Bribery in Disclosure Requirements of the 

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System ....... 336 

Section 838—Requirement for Entities with Facility Clearances that 

are not under Foreign Ownership Control or Influence Mitigation ...... 336 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 336 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 336 

Advisory Panel on Improving Interagency National Security Coordination .............................................................................................................. 336 

Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage ........................................... 337 

Augmentation of Army Brigade Combat Teams to Advise and Assist 

Foreign Security Forces ............................................................................ 337 

Certification and Accreditation Process for Information Technology Programs .......................................................................................................... 338 

Common Alignment of World Regions in the Internal Organization 

of Departments and Agencies with International Responsibilities ....... 339 

Intelligence Information Sharing ................................................................ 339 

Personnel Management Policy and Plans Affecting Special Operations 

Forces ......................................................................................................... 340 

Senior Workforce in the Business Transformation Agency ....................... 340 

Strategic Management Plan ......................................................................... 341 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 341 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 341 

Section 901—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps ........................................... 341 

Section 902—Realignment of the Organizational Structure of the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense to Carry Out the Reduction Required 

by Law in the Number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense .......... 341 

Section 903—Unified Medical Command .................................................... 342 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 342 

Section 911—Integrated Space Architectures ............................................ 342 

Subtitle C—Intelligence-Related Matters ....................................................... 343 

Section 921—5–Year Extension of Authority for Secretary of Defense 

to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities ........................................................................................ 343 

Section 922—Space and Counterspace Intelligence Analysis ................... 343 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 344 

Section 931—Revisions to the Board of Regents for the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences ............................................. 344 

Section 932—Increased Flexibility for Combatant Commander Initiative Fund .................................................................................................... 344 

Section 933—Two-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Temporary 

Waiver of Reimbursement of Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental 

Personnel at Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security 

Studies ........................................................................................................ 344 

Section 934—Additional Requirements for Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review in 2011 ................................................................................. 344 

Section 935—Codification of Congressional Notification Requirement 

before Permanent Relocation of Any United States Military Unit 

Stationed outside the United States ........................................................ 344 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 345 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 345 

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 345 

Counterterrorism .............................................................................................. 345 

Counterterrorism Initiatives ........................................................................ 345 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

Countering Extremist Use of the Internet .................................................. 348 

Countering Network-Based Threats ............................................................ 348 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency Mission and Resourcing ..................... 349 

Rotary-Wing Assets for United States Special Operations Forces ........... 349 

Strategies for Countering Irregular Warfare Challenges .......................... 350 

Interagency Coordination ................................................................................. 351 

Center for Strategic Communications and Public Diplomacy ................... 351 

Force Protection Policies .............................................................................. 352 

Funding of National Security Requirements .............................................. 352 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center ................................................ 352 

Policy and Guidance for Defense Support of Civil Authorities ................. 353 

Report on the Potential Use of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization Initiatives to Support Humanitarian Mine Action .. 354 

Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base ............................................................ 354 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 355 

Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program ................................... 355 

Feasibility Study for Transfer of Aircraft to Non-Federal Entities .......... 357 

Impact Assessment of Cybersecurity Standards ........................................ 358 

Knowledge Management for Information Operations Programs .............. 359 

Military Liaison Elements ............................................................................ 359 

Rebalancing of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Force ............................ 360 

Report on Acquisition Strategy for Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment ...................................................................................... 361 

Report on Department of Defense Support to State Defense Forces ........ 361 

Study on the Feasibility of the Democratic Republic of Georgia as 

a Transportation Base .............................................................................. 361 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 362 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 362 

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority ................................................ 362 

Section 1002—Authorization of Additional Appropriations for Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti for Fiscal Year 2010 ................. 362 

Section 1003—Budgetary Effects of this Act .............................................. 362 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 362 

Section 1011—Unified Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism Campaign 

in Colombia ................................................................................................ 362 

Section 1012—Joint Task Forces Support to Law Enforcement Agencies 

Conducting Counterterrorism Activities ................................................. 362 

Section 1013—Reporting Requirement on Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities .................................................................... 363 

Section 1014—Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain Foreign 

Governments .............................................................................................. 363 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 363 

Section 1021—Requirements for Long-Range Plan for Construction of 

Naval Vessels ............................................................................................. 363 

Section 1022—Requirements for the Decommissioning of Naval Vessels 363 

Section 1023—Requirements for the Size of the Navy Battle Force 

Fleet ............................................................................................................ 364 

Section 1024—Retention and Status of Certain Naval Vessels ................ 364 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 364 

Section 1031—Extension of Certain Authority for Making Rewards for 

Combating Terrorism ................................................................................ 364 

Section 1032—Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or 

Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ............................................................................ 364 

Section 1033—Certification Requirements Relating to the Transfer of 

Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities ............... 365 

Section 1034—Prohibition on the Use of Funds to Modify or Construct 

Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .......................... 366 

Section 1035—Comprehensive Review of Force Protection Policies ......... 367 

Section 1036—Fort Hood Follow-On Review Implementation Fund ........ 367 

Section 1037—Inspector General Investigation of the Conduct and 

Practices of Lawyers Representing Individuals Detained at Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ............................................................. 367 

Subtitle E—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 367 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

Section 1041—Department of Defense Aerospace-Related Mishap Safety 

Investigation Reports ................................................................................ 367 

Section 1042—Interagency National Security Knowledge and Skills ...... 368 

Section 1043—Report on Establishing a Northeast Regional Joint 

Training Center ......................................................................................... 368 

Section 1044—Comptroller General Report on Previously Requested 

Reports ....................................................................................................... 368 

Section 1045—Report on Nuclear Triad ..................................................... 369 

Section 1046—Cybersecurity Study and Report ......................................... 369 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 369 

Section 1051—National Defense Panel ....................................................... 369 

Section 1052—Quadrennial Defense Review .............................................. 369 

Section 1053—Sale of Surplus Military Equipment to State and Local 

Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agencies .................. 370 

Section 1054—Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program .......... 370 

Section 1055—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 370 

Section 1056—Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force Structure Announcement Implementation ....................................................... 370 

Section 1057—Budgeting for the Sustainment and Modernization of 

Nuclear Delivery Systems ........................................................................ 371 

Section 1058—Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions ........................... 371 

Section 1059—Sense of Congress on the Nuclear Posture Review ........... 372 

Section 1060—Strategic Assessment of Strategic Challenges Posed by 

Potential Competitors ............................................................................... 372 

Section 1061—Electronic Access to Certain Classified Information ......... 372 

Section 1062—Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism .................... 372 

Section 1063—Policy regarding Appropriate Use of Department of Defense Resources .......................................................................................... 373 

Section 1064—Executive Agent for Preventing the Introduction of 

Counterfeit Microelectronics into the Defense Supply Chain ................ 373 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 373 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 373 

Civilian Personnel Authorizations ............................................................... 373 

Conversion of Department of Defense Civilian Positions to General 

Schedule ..................................................................................................... 374 

Deployed Civilians ........................................................................................ 374 

Retirement Eligibility for Department of Defense Fire Fighters .............. 375 

Scholarship Program for Civilians in the Mental Health Profession ....... 375 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 376 

Section 1101—Authority for the Department of Defense to Approve 

an Alternate Method of Processing Equal Employment Opportunity 

Complaints within One or More Component Organizations under 

Specified Circumstances ........................................................................... 376 

Section 1102—Clarification of Authorities at Personnel Demonstration 

Laboratories ............................................................................................... 376 

Section 1103—Special Rule Relating to Certain Overtime Pay ................ 377 

Section 1104—One-Year Extension of Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal 

Civilian Employees Working Overseas .................................................... 377 

Section 1105—Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations ..................................... 377 

Section 1106—Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators ...................... 378 

Section 1107—Authority to Waive Maximum Age Limit for Certain 

Appointments ............................................................................................. 378 

Section 1108—Sense of Congress regarding Waiver of Recovery of Certain Payments Made under Civilian Employees Voluntary Separation 

Incentive Program ..................................................................................... 379 

Section 1109—Suspension of DCIPS Pay Authority Extended for a 

Year ............................................................................................................ 379 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 380 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 380 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 381 

Air Force Requirements for Light Air Support Aircraft ............................ 381 

Annual Report on Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China ................................................................................................. 382 

Concerns Regarding Iraqi Contractor Employees ...................................... 382 

Countering Narcotics in Afghanistan .......................................................... 382 

Counterinsurgency Efforts in Pakistan ....................................................... 383 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

Cyber Attacks Involving China .................................................................... 383 

Future Agreements with the Government of Iraq ..................................... 384 

Non-Standard Rotary-Wing Study .............................................................. 384 

Realignment of U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam ................................... 385 

Resources for Success in Afghanistan and Policy against Arbitrary Limitations on Deployed Personnel ................................................................ 385 

Security Concerns Involving North Korea .................................................. 386 

Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for Afghanistan .... 386 

Support for United States Special Operations Forces during the Redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq .............................. 388 

Transition in Iraq ......................................................................................... 388 

United States Africa Command Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate ....................................................................................... 389 

U.S. Forces Korea Transfer of Wartime Operational Control of Republic 

of Korea Forces .......................................................................................... 389 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 390 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 390 

Section 1201—Expansion of Authority for Support of Special Operations to Combat Terrorism ..................................................................... 390 

Section 1202—Addition of Allied Government Agencies to Enhanced 

Logistics Interoperability Authority ........................................................ 390 

Section 1203—Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to 

Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces ................... 390 

Section 1204—Air Force Scholarships for Partnership for Peace Nations 

to Participate in the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program .... 391 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan .............. 391 

Section 1211—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Purposes 

Relating to Iraq ......................................................................................... 391 

Section 1212—Commanders’ Emergency Response Program .................... 391 

Section 1213—Modification of Authority for Reimbursement to Certain 

Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military 

Operations .................................................................................................. 392 

Section 1214—Modification of Report on Responsible Redeployment of 

United States Armed Forces from Iraq ................................................... 392 

Section 1215—Modification of Reports Relating to Afghanistan .............. 392 

Section 1216—No Permanent Military Bases in Afghanistan .................. 393 

Section 1217—Authority to Use Funds for Reintegration Activities in 

Afghanistan ................................................................................................ 393 

Section 1218—One-Year Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency 

Fund ........................................................................................................... 393 

Section 1219—Authority to Use Funds to Provide Support to Coalition 

Forces Supporting Military and Stability Operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan ................................................................................................ 394 

Section 1220—Requirement to Provide United States Brigade and 

Equivalent Units Deployed to Afghanistan with the Commensurate 

Level of Unit and Theater-Wide Combat Enablers ................................ 394 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 394 

Section 1231—NATO Special Operations Coordination Center ................ 394 

Section 1232—National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran ............ 394 

Section 1233—Report on Department of Defense’s Plans to Reform 

the Export Control System ....................................................................... 394 

Section 1234—Report on the United States Efforts to Defend against 

Threats Posed by the Advanced Anti-Access Capability of Potentially 

Hostile Foreign Countries ......................................................................... 395 

Section 1235—Report on Force Structure Changes in Composition and 

Capabilities at Military Installations in Europe .................................... 395 

Section 1236—Sense of Congress on Missile Defense and New START 

Treaty with Russian Federation .............................................................. 396 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 396 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 396 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 397 

Biological Threat Reduction ......................................................................... 397 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and Military Contacts Program . 398 

Metrics for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ........................... 398 

New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program .............. 398 

Shchuch’ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project .................................. 399 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 399 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 399 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 399 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 399 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 399 

Department of Defense Inspector General Growth Plan ........................... 399 

Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization ......... 400 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 400 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 400 

Section 1401—Working Capital Funds ....................................................... 400 

Section 1402—Study on Working Capital Fund Cash Balances ............... 400 

Section 1403—Modification of Certain Working Capital Fund Requirements .......................................................................................................... 401 

Section 1404—Reduction of Unobligated Balances within the Pentagon 

Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund .............................................. 402 

Section 1405—National Defense Sealift Fund ............................................ 402 

Section 1406—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense .... 402 

Section 1407—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 402 

Section 1408—Defense Inspector General .................................................. 402 

Section 1409—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 402 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 403 

Section 1411—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds .... 403 

Section 1412—Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for Previously 

Authorized Disposals from the National Defense Stockpile .................. 403 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 403 

Section 1421—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home ........................................................................................... 403 

Section 1422—Plan for Funding Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization Requirements ............................................ 403 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ............................................... 408 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 408 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................... 408 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 443 

F–35A Aircraft .............................................................................................. 443 

Force Protection Measures on United States Forward Operating Bases 

in Afghanistan ........................................................................................... 443 

H–60 Modifications ....................................................................................... 444 

Iraq Security Forces Fund ........................................................................... 444 

Marine Corps Radio Systems ....................................................................... 445 

Special Operations Funding for Overseas Operations ............................... 445 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 446 

Section 1501—Purpose ................................................................................. 446 

Section 1502—Army Procurement ............................................................... 446 

Section 1503—Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............... 446 

Section 1504—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement ................................ 446 

Section 1505—Air Force Procurement ........................................................ 446 

Section 1506—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement ................................ 446 

Section 1507—Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program ............ 446 

Section 1508—National Guard and Reserve Equipment ........................... 447 

Section 1509—Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund .............. 447 

Section 1510—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .................. 447 

Section 1511—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 447 

Section 1512—Limitations on Availability of Funds in Afghanistan Security Forces Fund .................................................................................... 447 

Section 1513—Limitations on Iraq Security Forces Fund ......................... 447 

Section 1514—Military Personnel ............................................................... 448 

Section 1515—Working Capital Funds ....................................................... 448 

Section 1516—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 448 

Section 1517—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 448 

Section 1518—Defense Inspector General .................................................. 448 

Section 1519—Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United States 

Funds for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq .......................................... 448 

Section 1520—Availability of Funds for Rapid Force Protection in Afghanistan ................................................................................................... 448 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XX 

Section 1521—Treatment as Additional Authorizations ........................... 449 

Section 1522—Special Transfer Authority .................................................. 449 

TITLE XVI—IMPROVED SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE IN THE ARMED FORCES .............................................................. 449 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 449 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 449 

Improved Coordination between Military and Civilian Law Enforcement in Response to Sexual Assaults Involving a Service Member ..... 449 

Inclusion of Community Organizations ....................................................... 450 

Reduced Delays for Convening Courts-Martial Involving Charges of 

Sexual Assault ........................................................................................... 450 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 450 

Section 1601—Definition of Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program and Other Definitions .......................... 450 

Subtitle A—Immediate Actions to Improve Department of Defense Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program ............................................ 450 

Section 1611—Specific Budgeting for Department of Defense Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program ............................................ 450 

Section 1612—Consistency in Terminology, Position Descriptions, Program Standards, and Organizational Structures ................................... 450 

Section 1613—Guidance for Commanders .................................................. 451 

Section 1614—Commander Consultation with Victims of Sexual Assault ............................................................................................................ 451 

Section 1615—Oversight and Evaluation ................................................... 451 

Section 1616—Sexual Assault Reporting Hotline ...................................... 451 

Section 1617—Review of Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Program to Reserve Components ............................................ 451 

Section 1618—Review of Effectiveness of Revised Uniform Code of Military Justice Offenses regarding Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other 

Sexual Misconduct ..................................................................................... 452 

Section 1619—Training and Education Programs for Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Program .......................................................... 452 

Section 1620—Use of Sexual Assault Forensic Medical Examiners ......... 452 

Section 1621—Sexual Assault Advisory Board .......................................... 452 

Section 1622—Department of Defense Sexual Assault Advisory Council 452 

Section 1623—Service-Level Sexual Assault Review Boards .................... 453 

Section 1624—Renewed Emphasis on Acquisition of Centralized Department of Defense Sexual Assault Database ....................................... 453 

Subtitle B—Sexual Assault Prevention Strategy and Annual Reporting 

Requirement .............................................................................................. 453 

Section 1631—Comprehensive Department of Defense Sexual Assault 

Prevention Strategy .................................................................................. 453 

Section 1632—Annual Report on Sexual Assaults Involving Members 

of the Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program ...................................................................................................... 453 

Subtitle C—Amendments to Title 10 .............................................................. 454 

Section 1641—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office ............... 454 

Section 1642—Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates ............................................................................. 454 

Section 1643—Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel and 

Victim Advocate Services .......................................................................... 455 

Section 1644—Notification of Command of Outcome of Court-Martial 

Involving Charges of Sexual Assault ....................................................... 455 

Section 1645—Copy of Record of Court-Martial to Victim of Sexual 

Assault Involving a Member of the Armed Forces ................................. 455 

Section 1646—Medical Care for Victims of Sexual Assault ...................... 455 

Section 1647—Privilege against Disclosure of Certain Communications 

with Sexual Assault Victim Advocates .................................................... 456 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 456 

Section 1661—Recruiter Selection and Oversight ...................................... 456 

Section 1662—Availability of Services under Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Program for Dependents of Members, Military Retirees, Department of Defense Civilian Employees, and Defense Contractor Employees ...................................................................................... 456 

Section 1663—Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program in Training Environments ........................................................ 456 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXI 

Section 1664—Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program in Remote Environments and Joint Basing Situations .......... 457 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 457 

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 457 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW ......... 457 

Section 2001—Short Title ............................................................................ 489 

Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to 

Be Specified by Law .................................................................................. 489 

Section 2003—Effective Date ....................................................................... 489 

Section 2004—General Reduction across Division ..................................... 489 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 489 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 489 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 489 

Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, Land Disposal ............................................. 489 

Fort Bragg Parking Concerns due to BRAC Force Structure ................... 490 

Quarters #1, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois ................................................. 490 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 490 

Planning and Design, Army ......................................................................... 492 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army ....................................................... 492 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 492 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 492 

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 492 

Section 2103—Use of Unobligated Army Military Construction Funds 

in Conjunction with Funds Provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Project ............................. 492 

Section 2104—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2009 Project ...................................................................................... 493 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2010 Project ...................................................................................... 493 

Section 2106—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 493 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 493 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 493 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 493 

Defense Access Road Assessment to Support Naval Support Activity, 

Northwest Annex, Virginia ....................................................................... 493 

Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range .............................................. 493 

Planning and Design, Navy ......................................................................... 494 

Silver Strand Training Complex, California ............................................... 494 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 494 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 494 

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 495 

Section 2203—Technical Amendment to Reflect Multi-Increment Fiscal 

Year 2010 Project ...................................................................................... 495 

Section 2204—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 

Project ........................................................................................................ 495 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 495 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 495 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 495 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 495 

F–22 Raptor Basing ...................................................................................... 496 

Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah ............................. 496 

Planning and Design, Air Force .................................................................. 496 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Air Force ................................................ 496 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 497 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 497 

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 497 

Section 2303—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2007 

Project ........................................................................................................ 497 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 497 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 497 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 497 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 497 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXII 

Planning and Design, Defense-Wide ........................................................... 498 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 498 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 498 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................... 498 

Section 2402—Family Housing .................................................................... 498 

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 498 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 498 

Section 2411—Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide .............................................................. 498 

Section 2412—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2000 Project ...................................................................................... 499 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 499 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 499 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 499 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 499 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 499 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 499 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 499 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 499 

Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station .............................................................. 499 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard ................................................. 500 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard ............................................. 500 

Stratton Air National Guard Base .............................................................. 501 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Air National Guard ............................... 501 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard ........................... 501 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 501 

Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ........... 501 

Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations .............................. 502 

Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ................................................................................................ 502 

Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations .................... 502 

Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations .................... 502 

Section 2606—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 502 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 503 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 503 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 503 

Defense Access Roads Assessment .............................................................. 503 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 504 

Subtitle A—Authorizations .............................................................................. 504 

Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment 

and Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 

Closure Account 1990 ................................................................................ 504 

Section 2702—Authorized Base Realignment and Closure Activities 

Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 .. 504 

Section 2703—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment 

and Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 

Closure Account 2005 ................................................................................ 504 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 504 

Section 2711—Transportation Plan for BRAC 133 Project under Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, BRAC Initiative ........................................................... 504 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 504 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 504 

Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques to Achieve 

Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities .......................................................... 504 

Carbon Fiber Grid Precast Concrete ........................................................... 505 

Collaborative Efforts to Address Installation Encroachment .................... 505 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIII 

Department of Defense Policy Regarding Installation Energy Management ............................................................................................................ 506 

Disposal Plans for Excess and Obsolete Facilities ..................................... 506 

East Coast Homeport Cost Assessment ...................................................... 507 

Enhanced Use Leases ................................................................................... 507 

Ensuring Realistic Air-to-Air Training for Fifth-Generation Aircraft 

Units ........................................................................................................... 508 

Future Unmanned Aerial Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability ......................................................................................................... 509 

Guam Civilian Infrastructure Requirements to Support and Sustain 

Realignment of Military Installations and the Relocation of Military 

Personnel on Guam ................................................................................... 509 

Naval Air Station North Island Transportation Improvements ............... 510 

Naval Station Mayport, Florida, Homeporting Alternatives ..................... 510 

Report on Workforce Housing and Medical Needs of Guest Workers 

on Guam ..................................................................................................... 511 

Sensors Center of Excellence—Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio .. 512 

Technologies to Achieve Progressive Collapse Resistance ......................... 513 

Vulnerability of Defense Critical Infrastructure to Electromagnetic 

Pulse Attack ............................................................................................... 513 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 514 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 514 

Section 2801—Availability of Military Construction Information on 

Internet ...................................................................................................... 514 

Section 2802—Authority to Transfer Proceeds from Sale of Military 

Family Housing to Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund ................................................................................................. 514 

Section 2803—Enhanced Authority for Provision of Excess Contributions for NATO Security Investment Program ....................................... 514 

Section 2804—Duration of Authority to Use Pentagon Reservation 

Maintenance Revolving Fund for Construction and Repairs at Pentagon Reservation ...................................................................................... 514 

Section 2805—Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds 

for Construction Projects inside the United States Central Command 

Area of Responsibility ............................................................................... 514 

Section 2806—Veterans to Work Pilot Program for Military Construction Projects ............................................................................................... 515 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 515 

Section 2811—Notice-and-Wait Requirements Applicable to Real Property Transactions ....................................................................................... 515 

Section 2812—Treatment of Proceeds Generated from Leases of NonExcess Property Involving Military Museums ........................................ 515 

Section 2813—Repeal of Expired Authority to Lease Land for Special 

Operations Activities ................................................................................. 515 

Section 2814—Former Naval Bombardment Area, Culebra Island, Puerto Rico ......................................................................................................... 515 

Subtitle C—Provisions Related to Guam Realignment ................................. 515 

Section 2821—Sense of Congress regarding Importance of Providing 

Community Adjustment Assistance to Government of Guam ............... 515 

Section 2822—Department of Defense Assistance for Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of Military Installations and Relocation of Military Personnel on Guam ..................................................... 516 

Section 2823—Extension of Term of Deputy Secretary of Defense’s 

Leadership of Guam Oversight Council .................................................. 516 

Section 2824—Utility Conveyances to Support Integrated Water and 

Wastewater Treatment System on Guam ............................................... 516 

Section 2825—Report on Types of Facilities Required to Support Guam 

Realignment ............................................................................................... 516 

Section 2826—Report on Civilian Infrastructure Needs for Guam .......... 517 

Section 2827—Comptroller General Report on Planned Replacement 

Naval Hospital on Guam .......................................................................... 517 

Subtitle D—Energy Security ........................................................................... 517 

Section 2831—Consideration of Environmentally Sustainable Practices 

in Department Energy Performance Plan ............................................... 517 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIV 

Section 2832—Plan and Implementation Guidelines for Achieving Department of Defense Goal regarding Use of Renewable Energy to 

Meet Facility Energy Needs ..................................................................... 517 

Section 2833—Insulation Retrofitting Assessment for Department of 

Defense Facilities ...................................................................................... 517 

Subtitle E—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 518 

Section 2841—Conveyance of Personal Property Related to Waste-toEnergy Power Plant Serving Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska ............... 518 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Whittier Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Tank Farm, Whittier, Alaska ........................................................... 518 

Section 2843—Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky ............................ 518 

Section 2844—Land Conveyance, Naval Support Activity (West Bank), 

New Orleans, Louisiana ............................................................................ 518 

Section 2845—Land Conveyance, Former Navy Extremely Low Frequency Communications Project Site, Republic, Michigan .................... 518 

Section 2846—Land Conveyance, Marine Forces Reserve Center, Wilmington, North Carolina ........................................................................... 518 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 519 

Section 2851—Requirements Related to Providing World Class Military 

Medical Facilities ...................................................................................... 519 

Section 2852—Naming of Armed Forces Reserve Center, Middletown, 

Connecticut ................................................................................................ 519 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 519 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 519 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 524 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments ......................................................... 524 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 524 

Subtitle A—Fiscal Year 2010 Projects ............................................................ 524 

Section 2901—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 524 

Section 2902—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 524 

Subtitle B—Fiscal Year 2011 Projects ............................................................ 524 

Section 2911—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 524 

Section 2912—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 524 

Section 2913—Authorized Defense-Wide Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations .............................. 525 

Section 2914—Construction Authorization for National Security Agency 

Facilities in a Foreign Country ................................................................ 525 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 525 

Section 2921—Notification of Obligation of Funds and Quarterly Reports ............................................................................................................ 525 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 525 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 525 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 525 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 539 

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 539 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 539 

Weapons Activities ........................................................................................ 539 

Stockpile Stewardship ........................................................................... 539 

Stockpile Management .......................................................................... 540 

Directed Stockpile Work ........................................................................... 541 

Stockpile Surveillance ........................................................................... 541 

B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Life Extension Study ........................................... 541 

Science Campaign ..................................................................................... 542 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign ......... 542 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign ................................... 542 

Readiness Campaign ................................................................................. 542 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities ............................................ 543 

Use of prior year balances ........................................................................ 543 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................................... 544 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXV 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development ............. 545 

Radiation detection technology ............................................................. 545 

Nonproliferation and International Security .......................................... 545 

Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention .................................... 546 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership ..................................................... 546 

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation ............... 547 

Second Line of Defense ......................................................................... 547 

Fissile Materials Disposition .................................................................... 547 

United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition .......................... 547 

Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition ................................... 547 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative .......................................................... 548 

Report on Securing Vulnerable Nuclear Materials .................................... 548 

Naval Reactors .............................................................................................. 548 

Office of the Administrator .......................................................................... 549 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 549 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 549 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................. 549 

Execution of Funding Provided for Defense Environmental Cleanup 

by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act .............................. 549 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant .......................................... 550 

Other Defense Activities ............................................................................... 550 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ................................................................. 551 

Report on Defense Repository at Yucca Mountain ..................................... 551 

Closing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository .................................. 551 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 552 

Subtitle A—National Security Program Authorizations ............................... 552 

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 552 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup ........................................ 552 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 552 

Section 3104—Energy Security and Assurance .......................................... 552 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 552 

Section 3111—Extension of Authority Relating to the International 

Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program of the Department of Energy ................................................................................... 552 

Section 3112—Energy Parks Initiative ....................................................... 552 

Section 3113—Establishment of Technology Transfer Centers ................ 552 

Section 3114—Aircraft Procurement ........................................................... 553 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 553 

Section 3121—Comptroller General Report on NNSA Biennial Complex 

Modernization Strategy ............................................................................ 553 

Section 3122—Report on Graded Security Protection Policy .................... 553 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 553 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 553 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 553 

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 553 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 553 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 553 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 553 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 554 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 554 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for National Security 

Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2011 ........................... 554 

Section 3502—Extension of Maritime Security Fleet Program ................ 554 

Section 3503—United States Merchant Marine Academy Nominations 

of Residents of the Northern Mariana Islands ....................................... 554 

Section 3504—Administrative Expenses for Port of Guam Improvement 

Enterprise Program ................................................................................... 554 

Section 3505—Vessel Loan Guarantees: Procedures for Traditional and 

Nontraditional Applications ..................................................................... 554 

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 555 

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 555 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 563 

Communications from Other Committees ............................................................. 563 

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 576 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 576 

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 577 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVI 

Compliance with House Rule XXI .......................................................................... 577 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 590 

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 590 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 591 

Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act ........................................ 591 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 591 

Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................................ 591 

Applicability to the Legislative Branch ................................................................. 592 

Record Votes ............................................................................................................. 592 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 601 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 602 

Additional views of Mr. Marshall ....................................................................... 602 

Additional views of Mr. McKeon, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Akin, 

Mr. Forbes, Mr. Miller, Mr. Wilson, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Turner, Mr. Kline, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Franks, Mr. Shuster, Mrs. McMorris 

Rodgers, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Wittman, Ms. Fallin, Mr. 

Hunter, Dr. Fleming, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Platts ........................ 604 

Additional views of Mr. Turner ........................................................................... 609 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–491 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2011 

MAY 21, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SKELTON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5136] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 5136) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with 

amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported 

bill. 

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the 

text of the bill. 

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS 

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 5136. The title of the bill 

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The 

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
2 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION 

The bill would, (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation 

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 

Authorize for fiscal year 2011: (a) the personnel strength for each 

active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the Armed Forces; (c) the military training student loads 

for each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on 

personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for overseas contingency 

operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for the 

Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize 

appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for the Maritime Administration. 

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS 

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts will provide 

budget authority. However, the committee strives to adhere to the 

recommendations as issued by the Committee on the Budget as it 

relates to the jurisdiction of this committee. 

The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of 

Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; military personnel; working 

capital funds; and military construction and family housing. The 

bill also addresses the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum 

Reserve and the Maritime Administration. 

Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this 

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel 

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization 

of specific dollar amounts for military personnel. 

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE 

BILL 

The President requested discretionary budget authority of $725.9 

billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services 

Committee for fiscal year 2011. Of this amount, $548.9 billion was 

requested for ‘‘base’’ Department of Defense programs, $159.3 billion was requested for the overseas contingency operations requirements covering the entire fiscal year, and $17.7 billion was requested for Department of Energy national security programs and 

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $725.9 billion in fiscal year 2011, including $159.3 billion for 

overseas contingency operations. The base committee authorization 

of $566.6 billion is a $16.4 billion increase above the levels proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
3 

vided for in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

The committee also recognizes the request from the Department 

of Defense for additional authorization in fiscal year 2010 for increases in overseas contingency operations and for humanitarian 

and disaster assistance to assist victims following the earthquake 

in Haiti. The committee recommends an additional $33.7 billion in 

supplemental authorizations in fiscal year 2010. 

The following table summarizes the committee’s recommended 

discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal 

year 2011 and compares these amounts to the President’s request. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
4 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here HR491.001
5 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here HR491.002
6 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here HR491.003
7 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here HR491.004
8 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here HR491.005
9 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here HR491.006
10 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here HR491.007
11 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here HR491.008
12 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here HR491.009
13 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here HR491.010
14 

BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

The President’s total request for the national defense budget 

function (050) in fiscal year 2011 is $739.3 billion, as estimated by 

the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 request includes discretionary funding for national defense programs not in the committee’s jurisdiction, discretionary funding for programs that do not require additional authorization in fiscal year 2011, and mandatory 

programs. 

The following table details changes to all aspects of the national 

defense budget function. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
15 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here HR491.011
16 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here HR491.012
17 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here HR491.013
18 

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL 

H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011, is a key mechanism through which the Congress of the 

United States fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 

States which grants Congress the power to raise and support an 

Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the 

government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of 

the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense (DOD) generally, and over the military application 

of nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The 

committee includes the large majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the current 

year, as informed by the experience gained over the previous decades of the committee’s existence. 

The committee remains steadfast in its continued and unwavering support for the men and women of the armed forces, the civilian employees of the DOD, and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

National Nuclear Security Administration. The armed forces continue to be deeply engaged in a number of ongoing military operations around the world, most significantly, the wars in the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq, and relief operations in the Republic of Haiti. The committee is deeply committed 

to providing full authorization for the funding required to restore 

the readiness of our military; enhance the quality of life of military 

service members and their families; sustain and improve the armed 

forces; and properly safeguard the national security of the United 

States. In addition to providing authorization of appropriations, the 

committee bill promotes the committee’s main policy objectives: enhancing authorities and capabilities for counterterrorism; strengthening and modernizing missile defenses; enhancing efforts to reduce and secure nuclear materials around the world; taking care 

of our troops and their families; restoring military readiness: 

resourcing the President’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan; enhancing support for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 

transitioning in Iraq; eliminating waste and recovering savings 

through acquisition reform; and maintaining robust oversight. 

H.R. 5136 authorizes $566.6 billion in budget authority for the 

DOD and the national security programs of the DOE. The committee also authorizes $159.3 billion to support overseas contingency operations during fiscal year 2011, and authorizes $33.7 billion for fiscal year 2010 supplemental appropriations for overseas 

contingency operations. The committee provides the resources necessary to support a 21st century military strategy; sustain the 

armed forces in the two wars they are fighting today; and prepare 

for the threats of tomorrow, whatever and wherever they may be. 

The committee makes counterterrorism a priority, providing the 

armed forces with the additional tools they need to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qa’ida and its extremist allies. 

The committee includes funds to implement the initial recommendations of the Fort Hood Follow-on Review conducted by the 

Department of Defense in the wake of the shooting at Fort Hood. 

It also builds upon past efforts and creates new initiatives to discredit extremist ideology. The committee increases funds for reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
19 

search and for taking additional steps to counter the use the Internet by extremists. It also addresses urgent force protection needs 

in Afghanistan, allowing the Department to cut through red tape 

by expanding rapid acquisition authority to deliver the resources 

needed to protect our troops. The committee enhances the capacity 

of the armed forces, specifically special operations forces, to act directly against terrorist organizations. 

Recognizing the important role that foreign nations play in the 

fight against terrorists, the committee expands funding to build the 

partnership capacity of foreign military forces to participate in support of military and stability operations and authorizes a joint Department of Defense and Department of State effort to train and 

equip non-military security forces in the Republic of Yemen. It authorizes coalition support funds to reimburse nations providing 

support in connection with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

with the broader counterterrorism and counterinsurgency mission 

in Pakistan to fight against al Qa’ida, the Pakistan Taliban, and 

other violent extremists. The committee also extends the authorization of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund to ensure the success 

of efforts to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan’s 

security forces. 

The committee supports the President’s new counterinsurgency 

strategy in the war in Afghanistan. To better reflect the new strategy, the committee requires a new semi-annual report on trends 

and developments in Afghanistan and requires reporting on 

progress in stopping the momentum of the Taliban and their allies, 

building the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces, and 

building the capacity of the Afghan Government. The committee 

bill also continues close congressional oversight of operations in 

Iraq, requiring reports focused on the redeployment of U.S. troops 

and their equipment over the next few months, and on the development of military capabilities that are necessary for the Government 

of Iraq to stand on its own. 

The committee prepares America to deal with 21st century 

threats such as weapons of mass destruction. The committee provides $10.3 billion, an increase of $361.6 million above the budget 

request, for ballistic missile defense and in support of the Administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach, which addresses immediate 

needs. To prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and 

to reduce the risk that these weapons could fall into terrorists’ 

hands, the committee fully funds the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and DOE’s nonproliferation program, which includes funding for the President’s plan to secure and remove all 

known vulnerable nuclear materials that can be used for weapons. 

The men and women that make up the armed forces are the 

heart and soul of our national security. The committee makes sure 

that our troops and their loved ones are receiving the first class 

benefits that they deserve. To improve the quality of life for our 

forces and their families, the committee provides a 1.9 percent pay 

raise for all service members, continuing efforts to reduce the pay 

raise gap between the uniformed services and the private sector. 

The committee bill increases the maximum amount of hostile fire 

and imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004, and increases family separation allowance for service members whose deployment or temporary duty requires them to live away from their 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
20 

families. The committee allows TRICARE beneficiaries to extend 

coverage to their dependent children until age 26, the same benefit 

that was afforded to individuals with private insurance policies in 

separate health care legislation passed earlier this year. Other initiatives to support military families include $345.0 million to modernize DOD schools, $65.0 million for Impact Aid education programs, and the creation of a new career development pilot program 

for military spouses. 

The strain of two wars has taken a toll on military readiness. To 

boost readiness and reduce the strain on our forces, the committee 

increases the size of the military by 7,000 Army troops and 500 Air 

Force personnel, which supports the President’s budget request. 

The committee significantly increases operation and maintenance 

funding to support the daily operations, training, and administration of U.S. military forces at home and abroad. The committee also 

provides critical funds to restore equipment stocks, including $9.9 

billion for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset and depot 

maintenance, $4.5 billion for depot maintenance of active and reserve Air Force aircraft, and $109.0 million for Navy ship and aircraft depot maintenance. To address national guard and reserve 

equipment shortfalls, the committee authorizes $7.2 billion to provide aircraft missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, and other equipment. 

To help prepare the armed forces for future military requirements, the committee authorizes major weapon programs and platforms that will protect our national security in the years ahead. 

Demonstrating the committee’s commitment to reverse the decline 

in the size of the Navy fleet, the committee authorizes 9 new ships, 

including 2 Virginia-class submarines, 2 DDG 51 destroyers, and 2 

Littoral Combat Ships. The committee also authorizes the F–35 

competitive engine program, a necessary insurance policy for the 

F–35 Lightning II aircraft program that will generate long-term 

savings for taxpayers and also reduce the national security risk of 

depending on a single engine for ultimately 95 percent of our nation’s fighter fleet. 

In keeping with the committee’s interest and longstanding defense policy oversight, the committee seeks to improve the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process. The committee replaces the 

QDR Independent Review Panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense with a National Defense Panel consisting of ten members, 

with the Secretary of Defense appointing two panel co-chairs, and 

the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate 

Armed Services Committees each appointing two members. To assist the Department in maximizing the value of the next Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review, the committee directs the Department to include a particular focus on counterterrorism missions, including in the area of information operations, strategic communications, and interrogation and detention. In the area of acquisition 

reform, the committee’s legislative efforts this year were primarily 

focused on separate legislation, H.R. 5013, the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in 

Every Acquisition Act of 2010, which separately passed the House 

of Representatives. The committee includes a variety of other acquisition related provisions with a particular focus on reducing or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
21 

eliminating the Department’s vulnerability in the area of strategic 

materials, and on oversight of contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

HEARINGS 

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 results from hearings that began on January 13, 2010, and that were completed on May 5, 2010. The full 

committee conducted 16 sessions. In addition, a total of 38 sessions 

were conducted by 7 different subcommittees and 1 special oversight panel. 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $111.4 billion 

for procurement. This represents a $6.3 billion increase over the 

amount authorized for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee recommends authorization of $111.2 billion, a decrease of $131.5 million from the fiscal year 2011 request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 procurement program are identified in the table below. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
22 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here HR491.014
23 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here HR491.015
24 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $6.0 billion for 

Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $6.0 billion, an increase of $9.5 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
25 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here HR491.017
26 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here HR491.018
27 

Items of Special Interest 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unmanned aerial vehicles 

The budget request contained $44.2 million for Early Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). 

The committee notes that, despite six years of system development work, 2009 limited user test results for Class I UAV found 

significant performance, reliability, and operational concept problems with the Class I UAV. Specifically, test reports indicate the 

Class I UAV is too loud and has too short a range to be tactically 

useful in many operations. Also, the Class I is intended to be transported and operated at the platoon level, but during the test proved 

unreliable and difficult to support and use by platoons, resulting in 

consolidation of the UAVs at the battalion level. The committee 

also notes that sufficient funds have already been provided by Congress for the Army to procure the first two brigade sets of Class 

I UAVs, and additional test assets. Based on test results to date 

and the availability of other funds, the committee believes that investment in additional brigade sets of Class I UAVs is premature. The committee recommends $34.7, a decrease of $9.5 million, for 

EIBCT Class I UAVs. 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $1.9 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.6 billion, a decrease of $256.0 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
28 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here HR491.019
29 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here HR491.020
30 

Items of Special Interest 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team non-line-of-sight launch system 

The budget request contained $350.6 million for the non-line-ofsight launch system (NLOS–LS). 

The committee notes that the Army terminated the NLOS–LS 

program in April 2010. As a result, the requested procurement 

funds are not needed. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $350.6 million, for NLOS–LS procurement. 

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System 

The budget request contained $291.0 million for procurement of 

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets. 

The committee supports the GMLRS, which is seeing extensive 

use in Operation Enduring Freedom. However, the committee understands that foreign military sales should provide production efficiency savings. 

The committee recommends $266.0 million, a decrease of $25.0 

million, for GMLRS rockets. 

Javelin Block 1 command launch unit requirements 

The committee is concerned that many Army National Guard 

units will not receive the upgraded ‘‘Block 1’’ Javelin command 

launch units (CLU), under current fielding plans, even as the entire active-duty Army transitions to Block 1 CLUs. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011, detailing 

the Block 1 fielding plan, by component, and the estimated cost to 

pure-fleet the entire Army with Block 1 CLUs. 

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Modifications 

The budget request contained $57.2 million for Patriot Modifications, but included no funds to outfit an additional battalion with 

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC–3) equipment. 

The U.S. Army Patriot force is on schedule to reach 15 battalions 

by 2012. Patriot remains the Department of Defense High Demand/ 

Low Density land-based air and missile defense capability called 

upon to support our forces on a global scale. In 2007, the Army was 

authorized to grow the force from 13 to 15 battalions. Since then, 

the deployment requirements and operational tempo have dramatically increased to include, starting in April 2010, open-ended rotations to our North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, the Republic 

of Poland. Patriot soldiers and equipment are deployed today in the 

United States Central Command, United States European Command, and United States Pacific Command areas of operation; 

more than 50 percent of the force is deployed at any given time. 

The Army has assessed an operational need for further force structure but has not programmed the manpower spaces or funding to 

upgrade a 16th existing battalion set of equipment and add it to 

the deployable force structure. Considering the growing demand for 

regional missile defense assets, the committee believes further 

force structure is necessary. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
31 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the adequacy of the Patriot force structure to meet current 

and projected global threats to our forces and submit a report on 

the assessment to the congressional defense committees by March 

1, 2011. 

The committee is also aware that the Army’s unfunded requirements letter included a request for $133.6 million to repair and recertify PAC–3 missiles and to upgrade 24 additional Patriot 

launchers to the PAC–3 capability. The additional missile procurement funds would provide the depot engineering support to shorten 

the time that some PAC–3 missiles will be out of the inventory 

awaiting recertification. The additional launcher upgrades would 

provide operational Patriot forces a second PAC–3 capable launcher. Many of the PAC–3 capable units ready for deployment have 

only a single PAC–3 capable launcher today (deployed units were 

provided the second launcher as a higher priority requirement). 

The second launcher provides a commander the ability to have 

more missiles ready to fire; an additional launch point; or increased 

confidence and reliability at the unit level compared to a single 

launcher. 

The committee recommends $190.8 million, an increase of $133.6 

million, for Patriot Modifications. 

Stinger missile service life enhancement program 

The committee is concerned that most Stinger missiles could exceed their storage life by the end of 2015. The committee understands that the Army and Marine Corps are evaluating the feasibility of a service life enhancement program (SLEP) as a way of 

mitigating the risk of the aging inventory. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees by February 1, 2011, that specifies the schedule and cost estimates for the proposed SLEP. The report should also contain a cost and schedule estimate for lethality 

enhancements including, but not limited to, a proximity fuze. 

Surface launched advanced medium range air-to-air missile system 

The budget request contained $116.7 million for the surface 

launched medium range air-to-air missile (SLAMRAAM) system. 

The committee notes that the budget request provides procurement funds to acquire six SLAMRAAM launch vehicles and nine 

fire control vehicles. The committee believes that the numbers of 

different vehicles requested should better align with fielding and 

operational plans, which do not require fire control vehicles in excess of available launch platforms. 

The committee recommends $102.7 million, a decrease of $14.0 

million, for SLAMRAAM procurement. 

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $1.7 billion for 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The 

committee recommends authorization of $1.6 billion, a decrease of 

$107.3 million, for fiscal year 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
32 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Army 

request are discussed following the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
33 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here HR491.021
34 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here HR491.022
35 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here HR491.023
36 

Items of Special Interest 

Modular handgun system 

The budget request contained $3.4 million for 5,000 new modular 

handgun systems to replace the M9 pistol. 

This is a new start program for fiscal year 2011. The committee 

notes that neither the Joint Requirements Oversight Council nor 

the Army Requirements Oversight Council have approved this requirement. Without a validated requirement, the committee believes this request lacks the necessary justification to proceed. The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $3.4 million, 

for the modular handgun system. 

Paladin Integrated Management program 

The budget request contained $105.3 million for procurement of 

upgraded M109A6 Paladin artillery systems. 

The committee supports the Paladin Integrated Management 

(PIM) program. The committee understands that with the 

cancelation of the Non-Line of Sight Cannon system that the PIM 

program is the Army’s only mobile artillery development program. 

However, the committee expects the PIM program to be delayed an 

additional six to eight months, based on technology integration 

challenges. As a result, the expected commencement of low-rate initial production is expected to slip into fiscal year 2012, obviating 

the need for procurement funds in fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $105.3 million, for PIM vehicle procurement. 

Stryker vehicles 

The budget request contained $299.6 million for 83 new Stryker vehicles and $591.4 million for Stryker vehicle upgrades. 

The committee supports the Stryker vehicle program, and believes that Stryker brigades provide the Army with a flexible and 

mobile force with combat capability between light brigades and 

heavy brigades, as originally planned by the Army. The committee 

also supports efforts to evaluate the double-V hull upgrade to select 

Stryker vehicles for service in Operation Enduring Freedom. If 

testing demonstrates the value of the double-V hull upgrade, the 

committee expects the Army to move forward quickly with these 

reconfigured vehicles. 

However, the committee is concerned that the Army’s future 

plans for upgrading Stryker vehicles and adding Stryker brigades 

are not clear. Specifically, the committee notes that prior year 

funding appears adequate to equip the eight planned Stryker brigades while also providing funds for additional maintenance float 

and training vehicles, yet the Army is requesting an additional 

$299.6 million for new vehicles in fiscal year 2011. The committee 

also understands that as of April 2010, the Army has in excess of 

$850.0 million in unobligated Stryker procurement funds dating 

back to fiscal year 2008 funding. While the Army claims to have 

plans to expend these funds on Stryker vehicles, the committee remains concerned, given the many other urgent needs in the Army’s 

budget, that constant changes in requirements by the Army have 

delayed use of these funds for this long. The committee expects the 

Army to rapidly clarify its force structure and upgrade plans for 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
37 

Stryker vehicles and execute the funding on hand. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver a report to the congressional defense committees by February 5, 2011, that provides a detailed explanation of changes in Stryker force structure, new requirements for upgrades and maintenance fleets, and the associated procurement and development funding through fiscal year 

2017 needed to achieve these requirements. The committee recommends $891.0 million, the full amount requested, for Stryker vehicle procurement and upgrades. 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $2.0 billion for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1.9 billion, a decrease of $32.5 million, for fiscal 

year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed following 

the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
38 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here HR491.024
39 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here HR491.025
40 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here HR491.026
41 

Items of Special Interest 

Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative 

The budget request contained $216.5 million for 120mm mortar, all types, of which $98.6 million was for the Accelerated Precision 

Mortar Initiative (APMI) program. 

The APMI program would provide precision guided mortar capability to address a Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement 

(JUONS) from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The committee 

understands the APMI program has completed a down-select process that resulted in substantially lower unit costs than had been 

originally budgeted for by the Army in the budget request for fiscal 

year 2011. The Army indicates that it will only require $19.9 million in fiscal year 2011 procurement funds to address the JUONS 

requirement from OEF. The committee recommends a total reduction of $78.7 million for 

the APMI program, a reduction of $28.6 million in the base request, and a reduction of $50.1 million in the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request, as part of title 15 of this Act. 

MK281 target practice rounds 

The budget request contained $230.3 million for Ctg, 40mm, all types, of which $24.8 million was for the MK281, Mod 0 target 

practice round and $89.4 million was for the MK281, Mod 1 target 

practice round. 

The committee recognizes MK281 target practice rounds are a 

non-dud producing, eco-friendly round which enables its use for fire 

and maneuver engagement training with the MK19 weapon system 

during the day and night at Joint National Training Centers. The 

committee also notes the MK19 is being used extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Therefore, the committee would encourage the Army to continue 

the procurement of MK281 target practice rounds as specified in 

the supporting budget documentation to support current target 

practice round requirements. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $9.8 billion for 

Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $9.4 billion, a decrease of $367.1 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
42 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here HR491.027
43 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here HR491.028
44 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here HR491.029
45 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here HR491.030
46 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here HR491.031
47 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here HR491.032
48 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here HR491.033
49 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here HR491.034
50 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here HR491.035
51 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here HR491.036
52 

Items of Special Interest 

Defense Advanced GPS Receivers 

The budget request contained $32.2 million for acquisition of 

8,297 Defense Advanced GPS Receivers (DAGR). 

To date, approximately 220,000 DAGR units have been delivered 

to the Army, replacing the need to purchase jamming-susceptible 

commercial GPS receivers. The Army acquisition objective is to 

purchase 462,288 units. Approximately 60 percent of the currently 

fielded DAGRs thus far have been installed in vehicles, creating a 

GPS void for individual service members. Additional funding for 

DAGR procurement should reduce the cost of each unit and increase the number of units available for deployment to individual 

warfighters. The committee is aware that purchase of additional 

DAGRs was the third item in the Army’s unfunded requirements 

letter to Congress. The committee recommends $83.4 million, an increase of $51.2 

million, for procurement of additional DAGRs. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team network integration kits 

The budget request contained $176.6 million for Early Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) network integration kits (NIK). 

The committee understands that the NIKs and the connectivity 

that they enable are the heart of the EIBCT program, and is what 

could eventually distinguish the EIBCT network from current 

Army network capabilities. However, the committee has numerous 

concerns with the performance and cost of this critical element of 

the EIBCT. The committee notes that 2009 limited user test (LUT) 

results for the EIBCT vehicle network integration kits found significant performance, reliability, and operational concept problems. 

In addition, the committee notes that these poor test results occurred while the NIKs were tested in a very small network of just 

a few nodes, which was operating in an unencrypted format and 

not subject to jamming or other network interference. The results 

of the test raise serious questions about the ability of the program 

to develop a network large enough and secure enough to achieve 

program requirements on its current schedule. While the program 

claims that fixes will be in place by the September 2010 LUT, the 

committee remains concerned that the LUT will feature a very limited number of network nodes that will still be operating in an 

unencrypted format. 

The committee also notes that even if the NIKs perform as 

planned, they may provide little additional capability to EIBCT 

units and will likely be very expensive. Despite the per-vehicle unit 

price for a NIK of approximately $1.0 million, the only functionality 

it brings is transmitting limited sensor data, such as still images 

and icons, for display on an existing Force XXI Battle Command 

Brigade and Below terminal. The committee is not confident that 

this limited network capability justifies spending almost $1.0 million per vehicle kit, when the Army has lower cost alternatives 

available for providing enhanced network capability down to the 

platform level. 

Finally, the committee understands that sufficient funds have already been provided by Congress through fiscal year 2010 for the 

Army to procure the first two brigade sets of network integration 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
53 

kits, and additional test assets. Based on test results to date and 

the availability of other funds, the committee believes that investment in additional brigade sets of network integration kits is premature. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $176.6 million, for procurement of EIBCT network integration kits. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team small unmanned ground vehicles 

The budget request contained $20.1 million for Early Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) small unmanned ground vehicles 

(SUGV). 

The committee notes that despite six years of system development work, 2009 limited user test results for the SUGVs found significant performance and reliability problems. Specifically, test reports indicated that SUGVs were overweight, allowed insufficient 

range between each SUGV and its operator to keep the operator 

safe, and have limited utility at night due to sensor limitations. 

The committee also notes that sufficient funds have already been 

provided by Congress for the Army to procure the first two brigade 

sets of SUGVs, and additional test assets. Based on test results to 

date and the availability of other funds, the committee believes 

that investment in additional brigade sets of SUGVs is premature. 

The committee recommends $21.3 million, an increase of $1.3 

million, for EIBCT SUGVs. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team training/logistics/management 

The budget request contained $61.6 million for Early Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) training/logistics/management 

fielding support. 

The committee understands that the requested funds are for support of fielding of other EIBCT equipment. Because of reductions 

to EIBCT procurement funds elsewhere in this title 1, the committee does not believe that the $61.6 million in associated fielding 

support funding that was requested will be necessary. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $61.6 million, 

for EIBCT training/logistics/management support. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors 

The budget request contained $29.7 million for Early Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) unattended ground sensors. 

The committee notes that, despite six years of system development work, 2009 limited user test results for the EIBCT urban-unattended ground sensors (U–UGS) and tactical-unattended ground 

sensors (T–UGS) found significant performance, reliability, and 

operational concept problems. Specifically, test reports indicated 

that the sensors were difficult to emplace, fell well below reliability 

requirements, and contributed ‘‘little to unit situational awareness’’ 

due to poor image quality and slow image transmission over the 

network. The committee also notes that sufficient funds have already been provided by Congress for the Army to procure the first 

two brigade sets of U–UGS and T–UGS, and additional test assets. 

Based on test results to date and the availability of other funds, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
54 

the committee believes that investment in additional brigade sets 

of U–UGS or T–UGS is premature. The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $29.7 million, 

for procurement of EIBCT U–UGS and T–UGS. 

Ground Soldier System acquisition strategy 

The budget request contained $110.5 million for the Ground Soldier System (GSS) Increment I program to support the low-rate initial production of 4,598 GSS units. 

The committee understands that the GSS program would provide 

situational awareness and understanding to the dismounted leader, 

allowing for faster and more accurate decisions in the tactical fight 

while also reducing fratricide. The committee notes GSS Increment 

I would primarily focus on providing the ground soldier with improved situational awareness, command and control, hands-free 

color display, and improved hearing protection/enhancement and 

voice and position location information. The committee is aware 

that GSS Increment I would use technologically mature systems, 

including radios and communication software, with program risk 

found in the integration of these systems. 

The committee believes the current acquisition strategy for GSS 

Increment I is high risk, and has concerns regarding the proposed 

schedule to move the program from milestone A to milestone C, effectively bypassing milestone B, within 21 months of the initial development contract award. The committee notes that the schedule 

does not account for any major obstacles which might surface due 

to the complexities involved with systems integration. 

The committee expects all developmental testing to be completed 

and analyzed before any decision is made prior to beginning Milestone C. The committee also expects that the Army will fully comply with section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, prior to any 

Milestone B or milestone C decision. The committee recommends 

$96.0 million, a reduction of $14.5 million, for the Ground Soldier 

System Increment I program. 

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles 

The committee understands the high mobility multi-purpose 

wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) has provided a proven capability for a 

light tactical vehicle (LTV) for the armed forces for over 25 years. 

The committee notes that through congressional support and significant investment during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, over 40,000 HMMWVs have been recapitalized through an extensive recapitalization program that provided 

additional performance and survivability capabilities to HMMWVs. 

In addition, over 50,000 new Up-Armored HMMWVs (UAH) have 

been procured during this period. 

The committee is aware that the fiscal year 2011 Overseas Contingency Operations budget request contained $1.3 billion in the 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund for new production of HMMWVs 

and UAHs, and the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental budget request 

for ongoing military operations contained $318.9 million for new 

production of HMMWVs and UAHs. The committee supports the 

President’s request to utilize these funds for the procurement of 

new HMMWVs as specified in the supporting budget documentation. The committee also recognizes that HMMWV and UAH reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
55 

quirements may exist beyond these purposes, particularly for the 

Army National Guard. The committee encourages the military 

services and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to adequately 

resource and effectively address any unmet LTV requirements in 

future budget submissions. 

High-resolution three dimensional topographic data 

The committee understands that there is a requirement for highresolution three dimensional (3D) topographic terrain data with cocollected high resolution color imagery to meet warfighter requirements in planning and executing operations in urban terrain in the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee also understands 

that tactical commanders have provided Joint Urgent Operational 

Needs Statements (JUONS) to the Department of Defense for highresolution 3D topographic terrain data with co-collected high-resolution color imagery, but that these JUONS have not been 

resourced. 

The committee is concerned about the lack of the high-resolution 

3D topographic terrain data needed by commanders and 

warfighters to conduct population-centric operations over the complex and urban terrain that characterize today’s hybrid-multimodal warfare. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the executive agent for high-resolution 3D topographic terrain data for U.S. ground forces and special 

operations forces, to conduct a study regarding the extent of the 

shortfall of high-resolution 3D topographic terrain data, to include 

resources required to meet this requirement. The report should also 

address whether organizational changes are required to ensure 

day-to-day visibility of the importance of this capability within the 

intelligence community. The committee directs the Commander, 

USACE to provide this report to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2010. 

The committee further directs the Director of the Joint Staff to 

request the combat commands to provide their views on the importance of high-resolution 3D topographic terrain data, and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees transmitting 

the responses from the combatant commands by September 1, 

2010. 

Intelligent Munitions System remote control units 

The budget request contained $6.6 million for procurement of Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) remote control units. 

The committee notes that the low-rate initial production decision 

for the IMS remote control units has slipped to fiscal year 2012 due 

to technological challenges that emerged during development testing. Therefore, the committee does not believe that the amount requested is needed in fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $6.6 million, 

for IMS remote control units. 

Joint Tactical Radio System hand-held radios 

The budget request contained $209.6 million for procurement of 

various models of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radios. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
56 

The committee supports the goals of the JTRS program. In particular, the committee supports the program’s innovative acquisition model that seeks to maintain multiple vendors for each class 

of JTRS radios and annual competition throughout the life of the 

JTRS program. However, the committee notes that the JTRS small 

form factor ‘‘c’’ (SFF–C) radio, also referred to as a ‘‘rifleman radio,’’ 

has been delayed for at least a year. In addition, the committee 

notes that the Army received $25.3 million in fiscal year 2010 for 

more than 2,700 early-model SFF–C radios, which is more than 

enough for testing and initial low-rate production. Therefore, the 

committee believes that no procurement funds are needed in fiscal 

year 2011 for JTRS SFF–C radios. The committee recommends $199.4 million, a decrease of $10.2 

million, for JTRS radio procurement. 

Non-system training device program 

The budget request contained $297.2 million to continue the nonsystem training device (NSTD) program, but included no funds to 

procure the following NSTD programs: Mine Resistant Ambush 

Protected Vehicle Virtual Trainers (MRAP–VVT) for the California 

National Guard, MRAP–VVTs for the Alabama National Guard, 

and Tabletop Trainers, Individual Gunnery Trainers (IGT) for the 

California National Guard. 

The Army’s NSTD program is an initiative used to introduce realistic and effective training devices into individual and unit training settings. The committee understands there is an emphasis on 

training military personnel in urban operations and asymmetric 

tactical situations similar to those being experienced by soldiers in 

Overseas Contingency Operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee understands these 

devices provide capabilities that allow soldiers and units to train 

for tasks and missions that would be unsafe or too resource intensive to conduct with actual weapons, weapons systems, and/or ammunition. The committee supports this initiative and believes these 

programs could significantly improve soldier survivability and performance. 

The committee recommends $308.9 million for the NSTD program for a total increase of $11.7 million, including: an increase of 

$6.0 million for MRAP–VVTs for the California National Guard, 

$5.0 million for MRAP–VVTs for the Alabama National Guard, and 

$0.7 million for Tabletop Trainers, IGTs for the California National 

Guard. 

Warfighter Information Network—Tactical Increment 2 

The budget request contained $421.8 million for procurement of 

Warfighter Information Network—Tactical (WIN–T) equipment. 

The committee supports the Army’s WIN–T program and understands that it is a critical element of the Army’s overall effort to 

provide advanced networking capabilities in its tactical formations. 

The committee notes that the three increments of the WIN–T program are now programs of record that conform to Department of 

Defense acquisition policies, and therefore believes that adequate 

oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure proper testing of 

WIN–T equipment. However, the committee notes that WIN–T Increment 2 received only partial approval for low-rate initial producVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
57 

tion, and that as a result execution of funds already provided will 

be slower than planned. The committee recommends $396.8 million, a decrease of $25.0 

million, for WIN–T equipment procurement. 

JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE DEFEAT FUND

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $215.9 million 

for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. The committee recommends a transfer of this funding to title XV of this 

Act. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
58 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here HR491.037
59 

Items of Special Interest 

Joint counter remote control improvised explosive device electronic 

warfare 

The committee is aware that there are several thousand military 

vehicles in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom that are equipped with legacy counter remote control improvised explosive device electronic warfare (CREW) systems. The 

committee has continually urged the Secretary of Defense to expeditiously upgrade or replace these legacy CREW systems. The committee understands the future joint-counter remote control improvised explosive device electronic warfare (JCREW) program of 

record for the military services is the JCREW 3.3 system and this 

system is expected to be fielded in fiscal year 2012. The committee 

notes both the Army and the Marine Corps will attempt to continue to upgrade their legacy systems to keep pace with threats 

until JCREW 3.3 becomes available. 

The committee is aware the single manager for JCREW, who is 

a flag grade officer designated by the Secretary of the Navy, the 

Department of Defense Executive Agent for the program, is responsible for improving the efficiency and economy of future groundbased CREW technology development, and for eliminating duplication and overlap of effort. The military services are required to follow the single manager’s guidance for integrating, fielding, and replacing CREW systems. 

The committee believes the individual military services should 

assume a greater amount of responsibility related to providing joint 

acquisition goals, objectives, and execution of the JCREW program 

office rather than relying solely on Department of Navy budgets 

and Overseas Contingency Operations funds via the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. This funding instability discourages continued investment in current and future 

CREW technology, could potentially reduce or eliminate surge capability necessary to respond to other contingencies; and inhibits 

the development of affordable joint solutions. The committee encourages the military services to ensure inputs to the Department 

of Defense program objective memorandum to enable the JCREW 

joint program office to continue the development and acquisition of 

joint CREW systems. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, within 120 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act, outlining forecast requirements 

for armed forces sustainment of CREW legacy systems and future 

CREW system requirements. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $18.5 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $19.1 billion, an increase of $624.0 million, for fiscal 

year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
60 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
61 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here HR491.038
62 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here HR491.039
63 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here HR491.040
64 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here HR491.041
65 

Items of Special Interest 

Department of Navy tactical aircraft inventory 

The budget request contained $1.8 billion for the procurement of 

22 F/A–18E/F Super Hornet strike-fighters. 

The committee is concerned by the manner in which the Navy 

and the Marine Corps are managing and accepting an unprecedented level of operational risk within the Department of the Navy 

tactical aircraft force structure while waiting for the F–35B and F– 

35C to complete development, testing, and fielding. The committee 

does not expect that the Navy and Marine Corps will be able to 

fully meet future operational strike-fighter requirements of any 

combatant commander if the tactical aircraft inventory management plan remains unchanged. The committee remains concerned 

with five areas of the Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft portfolio: (1) strike-fighter inventory requirements and estimated shortfalls; (2) sustainment and viability of the strike-fighter legacy fleet; 

(3) courses of action that are being implemented, resulting in unprecedented levels of operational risk; (4) F–35B and F–35C affordability; and, (5) closure of the F/A–18E/F production line. 

The committee is disappointed with the manner in which officials 

of the Department of the Navy have conveyed strike-fighter inventory requirements and estimated shortfalls over the past several 

years. The committee notes that the validated strike-fighter inventory requirement is 1,240 aircraft, but currently the Navy is using 

the current operational demand figure of 1,154 aircraft as its baseline for projections of future shortfalls. This is an inaccurate depiction of the actual shortfall of tactical fighters in the inventory, and 

the Navy and Marine Corps strike-fighter shortfall mitigation 

strategies are either optimistic or not credible since the mitigation 

strategies are not funded. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee describes the ongoing development problems with the F–35 series Joint Strike Fighter 

(JSF) and notes that the JSF is significantly delayed, well over cost 

projections, and not likely to arrive in the Navy-Marine Corps inventories in sufficient numbers to offset the pending retirements of 

F/A–18 series and AV–8B aircraft. The committee estimates that 

by fiscal year 2017 the Navy-Marine Corps inventory could easily 

be 250 aircraft short of requirements, or the equivalent of 5 carrier 

air wings. This is an unacceptable outcome and the committee will 

not support future budget requests that fail to address the factual 

realities of a naval strike-fighter shortfall. Absent a complete reversal of development and production performance in the JSF program, the committee expects future budget submissions to extend 

the production of the F/A–18E/F series aircraft to prevent U.S. 

naval airpower from losing significance in the nation’s arsenal. Although the Marine Corps chose not to recapitalize its current fleet 

of fixed-wing F/A–18A/D aircraft with F/A–18E/F aircraft, the committee believes that procuring F/A–18E/F aircraft should be considered as a means in resolving the Marine Corps’ inevitable strikefighter inventory shortfall. 

The committee recommends an increase of $500.0 million, which 

when combined with $130.5 million excess funding as a result of 

the third multiyear procurement, shall be available for the procureVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
66 

ment of an additional eight F/A–18E/F Super Hornet strike-fighters. 

UH–1Y/AH–1Z rotorcraft upgrade program 

The budget request contained $896.6 million for the procurement 

of 31 UH–1Y and AH–1Z rotorcraft. 

The committee understands that the advance procurement funding appropriated in fiscal year 2010 only supports the procurement 

of 28 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. The Marine Corps has informed 

the committee that the UH–1Y and AH–1Z prime contractor plans 

to provide internal advance procurement funding, at the risk of the 

contractor, to support the procurement of 31 aircraft in fiscal year 

2011. The committee understands the funding which the contractor 

intends to use for advance procurement was originally intended to 

be applied towards cost-reduction initiatives to lower the unit recurring flyaway cost of the rotorcraft. 

The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps’ budget request is shortsighted in applying the contractor’s funds towards advance procurement for only three additional aircraft instead of towards already pre-planned cost-reduction initiatives. Applying 

these funds towards cost-reduction initiatives would provide a larger return on investment by decreasing the overall cost of the rotorcraft across the life of the program, and in turn, could bolster the 

committee’s future support regarding any future multi-year procurement contract authority request from the Marine Corps. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of 

the Navy to reevaluate the business case for using the contractor’s 

funds in fiscal year 2011 for procurement of only three additional 

rotorcraft vice the long-term benefits gained in using these funds 

for cost-reduction initiatives. 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $3.4 billion for 

Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $3.4 billion, a decrease of $8.9 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
67 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here HR491.042
68 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here HR491.043
69 

Items of Special Interest 

Littoral Combat Ship Module weapons 

The budget request contained $9.8 million for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Module Weapons, of which $8.9 million was requested 

for procurement of 45 non-line-of-sight launch system (NLOS–LS) 

missiles. 

The committee notes that the Army has terminated the NLOSLS program, and even if it is continued by the Navy, an additional 

year of development work will be required. As a result, the committee does not agree with Navy procurement funding for NLOS– 

LS in fiscal year 2011. In title II of this report, the committee recommends an increase in Navy research and development funding 

to support continued development work for the NLOS–LS program 

if the Navy determines that is in the best interest of the LCS program. The committee recommends $0.9 million, a decrease of $8.9 million, for LCS Module weapons. 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $818.0 million 

for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $818.0 million, no change in 

the budget request, for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are 

identified in the table below. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
70 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here HR491.044
71 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here HR491.045
72 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $15.7 billion 

for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $15.7 billion, no change in the budget request, for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following 

the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
73 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here HR491.046
74 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here HR491.047
75 

Items of Special Interest 

U.S. Navy shipbuilding 

The budget request contained $15.7 billion in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy and $380.0 million in title XIV of this Act for the 

construction of nine Navy vessels. The budget request also included 

the fourth and final incremental funding authorization for construction of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78); 

funding for advance procurement necessary for the construction of 

vessels to be authorized in future fiscal years; and incremental 

funding for the complex refueling overhaul of the aircraft carrier 

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). 

The committee notes that the Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels, known as the 30–year shipbuilding plan, 

submitted in accordance with section 231 of title 10, United States 

Code, proposes an average of 10 new vessels per year during the 

5-year period of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). While this 

is a positive step in shipbuilding procurement, the total number of 

battle force vessels remains essentially constant during the FYDP 

due to the high rate of ship retirements planned during the period. 

Only after the FYDP, do the battle force levels begin to increase 

in real terms and the stated goal of a 313-ship Navy is not 

achieved until fiscal year 2018. The committee further notes that 

a short term solution to the stagnant number of battle force ships 

through the FYDP is to delay retirement of vessels with useful 

service life and that a planned approach to retire no more ships in 

any one fiscal year than are being delivered to the Navy would accomplish this goal. 

Aircraft carriers 

The committee is concerned that the decision by the Secretary of 

Defense in April 2009, prior to the completion of the congressionally mandated analysis of the Quadrennial Defense Review, to shift 

aircraft carrier construction to five-year centers for the stated purpose of ‘‘a more fiscally sustainable path’’ was shortsighted. The 

committee has recently learned via receipt of Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Reports that the cost to construct the 

next three Ford-class aircraft carriers is likely to increase by up to 

$4.0 billion because of the change in construction centers. The committee notes that the current 30-year shipbuilding plan would not 

maintain a force of 11 operational aircraft carriers past fiscal year 

2040 and therefore does not conform to the requirement in section 

5062b of title 10, United States Code, to maintain an operational 

fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. 

The committee expects that subsequent plans will conform to 

current law, or the Secretary of the Navy will request a change to 

statute commensurate with detailed analysis of the effect a reduction to 10 operational aircraft carriers will have on the national 

military strategy. In title I of this Act, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to phase the construction of aircraft carriers 

to minimize the total cost for procurement of the vessels. 

DDG 51 class destroyer 

The committee is pleased with the effort by the Navy to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the radar and hull alternatives 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
76 

needed for a future sea-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) platform. The analysis has determined that the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) system matched to a DDG 51 class destroyer hull is the most cost-effective method of fielding a new generation of sea-based BMD. The committee notes that this new 

radar development program will leverage existing technologies of 

both the DDG 1000 class destroyer program and the DDG 51 class 

destroyer program. The committee understands that the AMDR 

system is not likely to reach full development for a number of years 

and that a funding authorization request for the first ship will not 

occur until fiscal year 2016. In the meantime, the committee understands that the Navy’s plan is to continue the restart of the DDG 

51 production line begun last year using a procurement strategy of 

three ships every two years in a ‘‘2–1–2–1’’ build plan. The committee has significant concerns whether such an acquisition strategy can sustain a competitive relationship between the two current 

surface warfare construction yards. 

DDG 1000 class destroyer 

The committee is concerned with the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach 

incurred by the DDG 1000 destroyer program. The committee understands that the current cost breach was caused by costs associated with research and development efforts charged against only 

three vessels vice the original seven. 

The committee notes that this cost threshold breach was known 

by the Navy far in advance of the receipt of notification required 

by law. The committee was informed that official notification of the 

cost breach was not technically required until after submission of 

the budget request for fiscal year 2011, as the budget request was 

the official truncation of the class to three vessels. This argument 

is disingenuous in that both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy made public statements and transmitted official 

correspondence to the committee that the program would be truncated to three vessels as early as mid–2008. 

However, regardless of how the Navy has arrived at this juncture, the fact remains that one vessel is currently under construction and significant materiel orders have been made for the second. 

The committee is also keenly aware of the industrial base consequences of a decision by the Secretary of Defense to terminate 

the program. 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The Littoral Combat Ship program has failed its initial intent to 

build inexpensive ships with modular capability and field them to 

the fleet at a high rate. None of those goals have been met. The 

ships are expensive; the modular capability has not been tested or 

verified; and in some cases is still undergoing development; and 

only two of the ships have been delivered to the Navy. 

Last year, the committee supported the request of the Secretary 

of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to revamp the acquisition strategy for these vessels and to down-select to one variant of the ship with the award of the fiscal year 2010 two-ship authorization. The new acquisition strategy is aimed at reducing 

overall costs by procuring 10 ships in the Future Years Defense 

Plan using a fixed price incentive contract in fiscal year 2010 with 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
77 

priced options for 8 additional ships, 2 per year, in fiscal years 

2011–15. In addition, the government would gain all rights to the 

technical data package required to compete the winning design to 

a second source shipyard which would build 5 additional ships, for 

a total of 15 ships, between fiscal years 2012 and 2015. The committee supported this plan as the best alternative to provide needed capability to the fleet in the shortest time possible, at the least 

cost. The plan was also proposed to the committee as the best way 

to divorce the prime contractors from the program and to transition 

the ship’s installed combat systems to government furnished equipment that complimented equipment currently in use in the fleet. 

As of this report, the Navy has received the proposals from the 

two authorized competitors and is in the process of source selection 

leading to contract award. The committee is cautiously optimistic 

that, with a down-select to one variant and stability in the construction schedule, this troubled program can begin to fulfill its 

original purpose of providing capable ships, in quantity, at an affordable cost. 

Maritime Landing Platform 

The Maritime Landing Platform (MLP), as originally briefed to 

Congress was to be a part of the larger Maritime Prepositioning 

Force (Future) (MPF(F)) which would provide the capability of a 

sea-base when conducting both high-end combat operations or humanitarian operations where access to port facilities was not available. 

The budget request has abandoned the previous MPF(F) concept 

in favor of a smaller prepositioning force for use in low-threat environments. Likewise, the MLP vessel itself, funded at a level of 

$120.0 million in fiscal year 2010, has been changed to a smaller 

vessel than the one proposed to and authorized by Congress last 

year, which will provide only incremental operational capability 

from the original design. These changes to the future capability of 

the amphibious force were made without notification or consultation with the committee, and appear to be driven purely from budgetary pressure and not from a well defined capabilities analysis. In 

addition, the current plan to build three MLP vessels, in fiscal 

years 2011, 2013, and 2015, is inefficient. The proposed MLP vessel 

is a modified design of a previously built commercial product tanker and can easily be supported by the shipyard chosen for construction at a rate of one per year. The committee expects the budget 

request for fiscal year 2012 to reset the construction centers for the 

remaining MLP vessels to fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

Ohio-class replacement program 

The committee strongly supports a robust sea-based strategic deterrent force. The current 14 ships of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are a national treasure and have helped keep the 

nation safe for over two decades. Like the ballistic missile submarine classes that preceded them, a percentage of these vessels 

remain in an alert posture, at sea, invulnerable to attack by potential enemies, ready to retaliate should the nation be attacked. The 

committee supports efforts to retain this capability into the future. 

However, the committee has questions concerning the current 

program to replace the Ohio-class ships. First, the basic requireVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:00 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
78 

ment of how much and what type of deterrent capability is sufficient for the national military strategy has not been communicated 

to the committee. Second, the committee has not been afforded the 

opportunity to review the analysis of alternatives conducted by the 

Navy, which determined that a submarine large enough to support 

the Trident II D5 missile weapons system is the preferred vessel 

to continue deterrent capability. Third, the committee has concerns 

that the decision to proceed with a submarine program of similar 

size as the Ohio-class ships was made prior to the analysis of alternatives, and that a potential use of a modified Virginia-class submarine, in production today, was discounted in favor of maintaining the Trident II D5 weapons system. Because of these concerns, 

elsewhere in this Act the committee will authorize, but withhold 

authority to obligate more than 50 percent of the funds requested 

for development of this program until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the committee of the necessity to continue sea-based deterrence with the Trident II D5 weapons system. 

U.S. shipbuilding industrial base 

The committee has reservations as to the continued health of the 

shipbuilding industrial base and its ability to remain viable in its 

current form. The shipbuilding industrial base currently serving 

the needs of Navy and the nation is a legacy from the cold war 

when the size of the Navy fleet, and the construction required to 

maintain that fleet, was significantly higher than today. The committee is concerned that the relatively low orders for new ships as 

proposed in the 30-year shipbuilding plan are not sufficient to 

maintain all shipyards currently constructing naval vessels. This is 

a very difficult situation for the Navy since reducing the number 

of shipyards constructing vessels could have the unintended consequence of driving up cost due to limited or no competition for 

particular classes of ships, yet the current industrial base adds increased costs due to the significant overhead rates that must be 

charged to each vessel. 

Perhaps even more significant than shipyard over-capacity for 

the current shipbuilding plan is the reduction in vendors willing to 

provide equipment and materiel necessary for the shipbuilding industry. Low orders coupled with significant government requirements for testing, traceability, and financial controls have driven 

many former suppliers out of the market altogether. The committee 

received testimony that the vendor supply base is currently 60 to 

70 percent sole source. While this almost total lack of competition 

may be manageable in terms of maintaining the ability to construct 

vessels, it is not a condition that is bringing the best value to the 

taxpayer. 

The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy has 

embarked on a comprehensive review of the industrial base, including the supply base. The committee requests the Secretary of the 

Navy to inform the committee when the comprehensive review is 

complete and to make available to the committee those officials 

who participated in the review to testify before the committee at 

a hearing in open session aimed at oversight of this potential 

threat to national security. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
79 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $6.5 billion for 

Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $6.5 billion, no change in the budget request, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
80 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here HR491.048
81 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here HR491.049
82 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here HR491.050
83 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here HR491.051
84 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here HR491.052
85 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here HR491.053
86 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here HR491.054
87 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here HR491.055
88 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $1.3 billion 

Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $35.0 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed following 

the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
89 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here HR491.057
90 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here HR491.058
91 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here HR491.059
92 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here HR491.060
93 

Items of Special Interest 

Marine Corps communications switching and control systems 

The budget request contained $32.3 million for Marine Corps 

communications switching and control systems. Of that amount, 

$22.7 million was requested for Warfighter Network Services Tactical equipment. 

The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps has been slow 

to execute on-hand funding from fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 

2010. In addition, the committee notes that $10.5 million in additional funding for this equipment is authorized in title XV of this 

Act. 

The committee recommends $12.7 million, a decrease of $10.0 

million, for Warfighter Network Services Tactical equipment. 

Marine Corps joint tactical radio systems 

The budget request contained $40.6 million for Marine Corps radio systems. Of that amount, $20.5 million was requested for 

joint tactical radio system (JTRS) radios. 

The committee continues to support the JTRS program. However, 

the committee notes that low-rate initial production of the two 

JTRS model radios requested by the Marine Corps in fiscal year 

2011 may be delayed, and that the Marine Corps has other funds 

available to procure radios to meet near-term requirements. The committee recommends $6.4 million, a decrease of $14.1 million, for Marine Corps procurement of JTRS radios. 

Marine Corps M88A2 recovery vehicles 

The budget request contained $12.0 million for Marine Corps 

M88A2 recovery vehicle procurement. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps requirement 

for M88A2 vehicles has increased by 28 vehicles, and that the 

M88A2 recovery vehicle is seeing extensive use in Operation Enduring Freedom in support of Marine Corps operations. The committee also notes that the Marine Corps Unfunded Programs List 

for fiscal year 2011 includes $55.0 million for 24 additional M88A2 

vehicles. 

The committee recommends $67.0 million, an increase of $55.0 

million, in Marine Corps procurement for additional M88A2 recovery vehicles. 

Marine Corps small unmanned ground vehicles 

The budget request contained no funds for Marine Corps procurement of small ground robots for use by Marine Corps infantry 

forces. 

The committee is concerned that despite the potential utility of 

such robots for infantry forces, the Marine Corps has no current 

plans to equip its forces with this capability. In particular, the committee believes that man-portable robots between 10–30 pounds 

may prove highly useful for Marine Corps infantry units in Operation Enduring Freedom. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to deliver, by March 1, 2011, a 

report to the congressional defense committees outlining the Marine Corps’ plans for fielding small ground robots, including specific 

requirements, cost estimates, and deployment timelines. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
94 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $15.4 billion 

for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $15.4 billion, a decrease of $10.6 million, for fiscal 

year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
95 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here HR491.061
96 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here HR491.062
97 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here HR491.063
98 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here HR491.064
99 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here HR491.065
100 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here HR491.066
101 

Items of Special Interest 

F–35 modifications 

The budget request contained $94.2 million for F–35 modifica- tions, of which $86.6 million was included to procure 25 kits to retrofit 25 low-rate initial production (LRIP) F–35A aircraft to the 

block three configuration. 

Under the recently-revised F–35 schedule, the committee notes 

that development of block three hardware and software components 

will not be complete until 2015, and believes that the request to 

procure kits to retrofit 25 LRIP F–35A aircraft to the block three 

configuration is premature. Accordingly, the committee recommends $7.6 million, a decrease of $86.6 million for F–35A modifications. 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $667.4 million 

for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $672.4 million, an increase of $5.0 million, for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in the 

table below. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
102 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here HR491.067
103 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $5.5 billion for 

Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $5.5 billion, a decrease of $7.5 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
104 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here HR491.068
105 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here HR491.069
106 

Items of Special Interest 

Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line 

The budget request contained $44.2 million for the Minuteman 

III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line program. 

The Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line program is designed to maintain sufficient industrial capability for solid rocket motors in order 

to sustain the Minuteman III weapon system through 2030, as directed by Congress. However, the budget request only supports 

low-rate production of three rocket motor sets in fiscal year 2011 

and would result in program termination in fiscal year 2012. The 

committee understands that a production rate below six per year 

would require regular requalification of the technicians for each 

production run. 

The committee has not yet received a plan to sustain the solid 

rocket motor industrial base as required by section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84). Absent a comprehensive plan, the committee supports retaining the industrial capability to sustain the Minuteman III 

weapons system. The committee recommends $51.7 million, an increase of $7.5 

million, for the Minuteman III Solid Rocket Motor Warm Line program, which should provide sufficient resources for six rocket 

motor sets in fiscal year 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
107 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $17.8 billion 

for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $17.9 billion, an increase of $66.4 million, for fiscal 

year 2011. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Other 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
108 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here HR491.072
109 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here HR491.073
110 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here HR491.074
111 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here HR491.075
112 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2011 contained $4.3 billion for 

Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends authorization of $4.4 billion, an increase of $119.4 million, for fiscal year 

2011. 

The Committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed following 

the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
113 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here HR491.076
114 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here HR491.077
115 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here HR491.078
116 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here HR491.079
117 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here HR491.080
118 

Items of Special Interest 

Advance procurement for AN/TPY–2 X-band radars 

The budget request contained $858.9 million for fielding of Ter- minal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) equipment and $94.1 

million for fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense interceptors, 

but contained no funds for fielding of Army-Navy/Transportable 

Radar Surveillance—Model 2 (AN/TPY–2) X-band radars. 

The AN/TPY–2 radar is capable of operating in either a forwardbased mode to provide information to the ballistic missile defense 

system (BMDS) and all of its potential interceptors, or in terminal 

mode to provide information to a co-located THAAD battery. The 

Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) for the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) includes funding to purchase a total of 14 AN/TPY–2 Xband radars by fiscal year 2015. Nine of the AN/TPY–2 radars are 

required for the nine currently-programmed THAAD batteries. At 

present, two AN/TPY–2 radars are deployed in forward-based 

mode, one in Japan and the other in the State of Israel. While the 

future requirements for AN/TPY–2 radars to support the BMDS 

and the Administration’s plan for regional missile defense systems 

are undefined, the FYDP includes three additional radars that 

could potentially be forward-based. 

Thus far, MDA has contracted for acquisition of seven AN/TPY– 

2 radars, the last of which will be delivered later in 2010. Funding 

for the additional seven radars will not begin until fiscal year 2012, 

leaving a potential production gap of over a year. The committee 

is concerned that this production gap will result in higher unit 

costs and greater schedule risks in the acquisition of AN/TPY–2 radars. MDA also plans to field the AN/TPY–2 radars for the THAAD 

batteries through its Sensors Directorate using research, development, test, and evaluation funds, and not through the THAAD 

fielding procurement account. The committee is concerned that not 

all of the additional AN/TPY–2 radars will be acquired using procurement funding. 

The committee recommends $65.0 million for advance procurement of equipment for future purchases of AN/TPY–2 radars to 

avoid obsolescence of key components and to maintain the industrial base. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to request all additional future funding for acquisition of AN/ 

TPY–2 radars within the defense-wide procurement account. 

Common data link 

In recent years, new competition has brought improved capabilities and cost savings to the common data link (CDL) on airborne 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms and unmanned aerial systems. However, the committee believes that 

equal participation in the further development of CDL specifications, and providing supporting systems engineering, would allow 

even more competition for CDL. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to define a common control interface for 

CDL terminals and directs its use for all new equipment purchases 

made after fiscal year 2011. 

Recognizing the benefits of multiple vendors supplying competitive offerings for this vital communications service, the committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all Department of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
119 

Defense efforts to install CDL on new blocks and models of Department of Defense platforms should adopt the CDL common control 

interface and that all future CDL procurements for these platforms 

shall be competitively awarded. 

Fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense interceptors 

The budget request contained $94.1 million for fielding of Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors, a reduction of $131.5 

million from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. 

The request would support the purchase of eight Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) Block 1B interceptors in fiscal year 2011, the first 

year that Block 1B interceptors would be purchased using procurement funding. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) anticipates increasing the purchase of SM–3 Block 1B interceptors to 66, 

at a projected cost of $701.9 million. Yet the production schedule 

contained in the Department’s detailed budget justification book 

shows an 18-month gap between the last deliveries of Block 1A 

interceptors in December 2011 and the first deliveries of the Block 

1B purchases in July 2013. 

In March 2010, the Government Accountability Office reported 

that the ‘‘Aegis BMD program is putting the SM–3 Block IB at risk 

for cost growth and schedule delays by planning to begin manufacturing in 2010 before its critical technologies have been demonstrated in a realistic environment.’’ The first flight test to demonstrate the Block 1B interceptor’s technology readiness has been 

delayed until the winter of 2011. 

The committee is concerned that the lack of stability in the purchase of SM–3 interceptors and the steep expansion of production 

of Block 1B interceptors in fiscal year 2012 could damage the industrial base and delay increases in the inventory of a system that 

will play a central role in the Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile 

defenses in Europe announced by the President in September 2009. 

The committee notes that the development of regional missile defense plans beyond Europe, pursuant to the Administration’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review released on February 1, 2010, may 

also expand the near-term requirement for Aegis BMD interceptors. 

The committee recommends $144.1 million, an increase of $50.0 

million, to provide for greater stability in SM–3 production and to 

reduce the size of the production increase in fiscal year 2012. The 

committee expects that MDA will only allocate additional funding 

for SM–3 Block 1B production in fiscal year 2011 if the first flight 

test is successful. 

The committee recommends $144.1 million, an increase of $50.0 

million, to provide for greater stability in SM–3 production and to 

reduce the size of the production increase in fiscal year 2012. The 

committee expects that MDA will only allocate additional funding 

for SM–3 Block 1B production in fiscal year 2011 if the first flight 

test is successful. 

Lighter-than-air vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

The committee is concerned about the duplication of effort among 

the military services in regard to the acquisition of lighter-than-air 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
120 

vehicles used by the military services for intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance and communications. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011, detailing the Department’s Future Years Defense Program requirement 

for lighter-than-air vehicles, by service, to include: the Special Operations Command; comparative operational and sensor capabilities; and unit and system costs of each vehicle and system; and 

completed analyses of alternatives. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations 

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 

2011 funding levels for all procurement accounts. 

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Procurement of Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

Increment One Equipment 

This section would limit the Secretary of the Defense from taking 

any steps to procure more than two brigade sets of Early Infantry 

Brigade Combat Team Increment One equipment, with a waiver 

based on providing testing data and reports to the congressional 

defense committees and an exception for meeting operational need 

statements. 

Section 112—Report on Army Battlefield Network Plans and 

Programs 

This section would require a report from the Secretary of the 

Army on the Army’s plans for future tactical network technology 

and the acquisition programs to achieve this network. This section 

would also limit obligation of certain Army procurement funds for 

tactical communications equipment until the report is received. 

There is an exception for meeting operational need statements. 

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Incremental Funding for Procurement of Large Naval 

Vessels 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to incrementally fund large naval vessels over a period of years not to exceed three quarters of the amount of years of planned ship construction. The planned ship construction time-period is defined 

starting in the year of authorization and ending in the year of projected delivery. Large naval vessels are defined as those vessels exceeding 17,000 tons light ship displacement. Additionally, this section would authorize an additional year of incremental funding for 

the vessel LPD 26 should the Secretary determine it is in the interest of the Navy to do so. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
121 

Section 122—Multiyear Procurement of F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and 

EA–18G Aircraft 

This section would amend section 8011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111–118) to clarify that 

the Secretary of Defense must submit a certification of full funding 

for a multiyear contract for the procurement of F/A–18E, F/A–18F, 

or EA–18G aircraft not later than 30 days prior to the contract 

award. This section would also amend section 128 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84) to require that the Secretary submit the certification required 

by section 2306b(i)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by September 

1, 2010. This section would specify that the Secretary may submit 

an update to the report on multiyear contracts, as required by section 2306b(l)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to reflect a 

multiyear contract for such aircraft, by not later than September 

1, 2010. This section would clarify that, notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, a multiyear contract for the procurement of such 

aircraft meets the requirements under section 2306b(i)(3) and section 2306b(l)(3) of title 10, United States Code, that a multiyear 

contract be specifically authorized by law in an Act other than an 

appropriations Act and in an appropriations Act, respectively.This 

section would clarify that the requirement of section 8008(b) of the 

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105– 

56) regarding a request for authority to enter into a multiyear contract shall not apply to a multiyear contract for such aircraft. Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to use the 

fiscal savings garnered from the Navy’s entry into the fiscal year 

2010 through 2013 multiyear procurement contract, now considered 

excess to the Future Years Defense Plan current program of record, 

and procure the maximum quantity of additional F/A–18E or F/A– 

18F aircraft that the excess funding would enable. 

Section 123—Report on Naval Force Structure and Missile Defense 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees on the requirements of the 

major combatant surface vessels with respect to missile defense. 

The report would include an analysis of the number of vessels 

needed to fulfill the missions of missile defense, including the mission of the phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense in 

Europe, when balanced against the competing tasks of meeting surface fleet demands in each of the geographic areas. The section 

would additionally require the Secretary outline the need to either 

upgrade existing ships outfitted with the Aegis weapons system to 

more robust missile defense capability or procure additional vessels 

above the current requirement of 88 large surface combatants. The 

Secretary would also be required to discuss expected technological 

advancements associated with missile defense systems and to provide the construct for deployment of Aegis ships equipped with missile defense systems within the context of the fleet response plan. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
122 

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling for F–22 

Fighter Aircraft 

This section would amend subsection (b) of section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84; 123 Stat. 2219) by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’. 

SUBTITLE E—JOINT AND MULTISERVICE MATTERS

Section 141—Limitation on Procurement of F–35 Lightning II 

Aircraft 

This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of amounts 

necessary for the procurement F–35 aircraft to an amount necessary for the procurement of 30 such aircraft unless the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation submit certifications to the congressional defense committees, not later than 

January 15, 2011, that specified items pertaining to the F–35 program have been accomplished. The section would also allow the 

Secretary of Defense to waive the full achievement of some items 

if the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics certifies that the failure to fully achieve some items would 

not delay or otherwise negatively affect the F–35 aircraft test 

schedule for fiscal year 2011, impede production of 42 F–35 aircraft 

in such fiscal year, and otherwise increase risk to the F–35 aircraft 

program. 

Section 142—Limitations on Biometric Systems Funds 

This section would limit the obligation of funding for biometrics 

programs within the Department of Defense until the Secretary of 

Defense provides a report to the congressional defense committees 

on the actions taken: 

(1) (To implement paragraphs (16)(a)-(f) of National Security 

Presidential Directive dated June 5, 2008; 

(2) To implement the recommendation included in Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -08–1065; 

(3) To implement the recommendations included in GAO report -09–49; 

(4) To fully and completely characterize the current biometrics architecture and establish the objective architecture for 

the Department of Defense; 

(5) To ensure that an official within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has sufficient authority and is responsible to 

ensure that all funding for biometrics programs and operations 

is effectively programmed, budgeted, and executed; and 

(6) To ensure that an officer within the Office of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff has sufficient authority and is responsible to ensure the development and implementation of common and 

interoperable standards for the collection, storage, and use of 

biometrics data by all combatant commanders and their commands. 

Further, this section would require written approval for all obligations of funds for biometrics program and activities within the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
123 

Department of Defense by the Director of Defense Biometrics in the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Section 143—Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Initiatives 

Database 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to direct the 

military services and the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to create a comprehensive improvised explosive device defeat initiative database and work with the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to develop 

a Department of Defense-wide database for all counter-improvised 

explosive device initiatives. This database would include all ‘‘defeat 

the device,’’ ‘‘attack the network,’’ and counter-improvised explosive 

device type efforts from across the Department, including the 

Rapid Equipping Force, joint concept technology demonstrations, 

and quick reaction task force efforts. 

Section 144—Study on Lightweight Body Armor Solutions 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to direct 

a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to 

identify and examine the requirements for lighter weight body 

armor systems. This section would require that not later than six 

months after the date of enactment of this Act, the FFRDC shall 

submit to the Secretary of Defense a report recommending ways in 

which the Secretary of Defense and each secretary of the military 

departments may more effectively address the research, development, and procurement requirements regarding reducing the 

weight of body armor. 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $76.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $76.5 billion, an increase of $342.6 

million to the budget request. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
124 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here HR491.081
125 

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $10.3 billion for Army research, 

development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee recommends $10.3 billion, a decrease of $16.6 million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 research, development, test, and evaluation, Army are identified in 

the table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 

following the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
126 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here HR491.082
127 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here HR491.083
128 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here HR491.084
129 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here HR491.085
130 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here HR491.086
131 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here HR491.087
132 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here HR491.088
133 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here HR491.089
134 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here HR491.090
135 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here HR491.091
136 

Items of Special Interest 

Abrams tank modernization 

The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 23735A for 

research and development of M1 Abrams tank upgrades. 

The committee supports continued upgrades to the Army’s fleet 

of M1 Abrams tanks. The committee notes that with the demise of 

the Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicles (MGV) 

program, the M1 Abrams will remain the Army’s premier combat 

platform for decades. As a result, the committee believes that an 

aggressive upgrade program is necessary to keep the M1 Abrams 

tank fleet capable of defeating all possible threats. The committee 

is concerned, however, that the Army’s current incremental plan 

for M1 Abrams upgrades could result in a production break in the 

fiscal year 2013–14 timeframe. The committee urges the Army to 

develop an Abrams modernization strategy during the fiscal year 

2012 budget deliberations that avoids any production gaps and integrates critical survivability technologies, such as an active protection system, in the initial tranche of upgrades. The committee recommends $107.5 million, the full amount requested, for research and development of M1 Abrams tank upgrades. 

Biometrics enabled intelligence 

The budget request contained $14.1 million in research and development in PE 37665A, an operational systems development 

budget activity, a 6.7 budget activity, for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), a 6.5 budget activity, for the joint personnel identification version 2 (JPIv2) biometrics collection device. 

The budget request also included $106.2 million in PE 33140A for 

biometrics design and development. 

Currently, there is no JPIv2 device available to be able to initiate 

EMD in PE 37665A in fiscal year 2011. The Army program manager currently plans to enter EMD in fiscal year 2012, if the technology readiness level (TRL) of the devices being considered for 

JPIv2 can be assessed at TRL 6. However, the Army has not established its acquisition strategy outlining the number of devices it 

will compete in the technology demonstration phase and the EMD 

phase of the program. 

The committee believes the Army, when requesting funding, 

should align the purpose of the funds requested with the appropriate budget activity. The committee also believes the $14.1 million request is premature, with sufficient funding available in PE 

33140A for technology development required on JPIv2. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $14.1 million, 

in PE 37665A for engineering and manufacturing development of 

JPIv2. 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle modernization 

The budget request contained $97.0 million in PE 23735A for research and development of Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) upgrades. 

The committee supports continued upgrades to the Army’s fleet 

of BFVs and views ongoing upgrades to the BFV fleet as a critical 

element of the Army’s overall combat vehicle modernization plan. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
137 

However, the committee is concerned that the Army is not executing funds made available in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for BFV 

upgrade research and development. The committee notes that even 

if the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) is fielded on schedule 

that it is only intended to slowly replace the M2 variant of the BFV 

starting in 2017. This fielding plan would leave dozens of other 

BFV variants in heavy brigade combat teams for an indefinite period. In addition, the committee understands that BFV chassisbased vehicles are being considered for replacement of some M113 

vehicles. As a result, the committee believes that it is far too soon 

for the Army to stop investing in the BFV fleet, or even slowing 

its upgrade plans. With the GCV program just beginning, the committee views any Army move to slow or terminate BFV upgrades 

as premature. The committee does not believe that upgrades to the 

BFV fleet will impact the GCV program or diminish the need for 

a new Army combat vehicle. Therefore, the committee expects the 

Army to move quickly to establish any needed BFV upgrade requirements and execute the funds provided for this purpose. Specifically, the committee urges the Army to consider engine or other 

upgrades that would improve mobility and increase electrical generating capacity. The committee recommends $97.0 million, the full amount requested, in PE 23735A for research and development of BFV upgrades. 

Cellulose nanocomposites for Army infrastructure and troop protection 

The budget request contained $79.1 million in PE 62784A for 

military engineering technology, but included no funds for the development of cellulose nanocomposite panels for ballistic protection. 

The committee understands that the use of cellulose nanocomposite panels for ballistic protection could further development of 

cost effective, reduced weight and rapidly erectable field structures 

as well as class IV construction materials. The committee notes 

this technology could accelerate the Army’s capability by addressing immediate requirements for blast and ballistic modular protective structures to meet different threat levels in overseas contingency operations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, in PE 

62784A for the development of cellulose nanocomposites for Army 

infrastructure and troop protection. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

The budget request contained $1.6 billion for Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) research and development, and $682.7 

million for procurement. 

In addition to the myriad of program challenges detailed elsewhere in this report, the committee is concerned with the continued lack of stability in the EIBCT program’s budget request. The 

committee views the lack of accurate and stable budget request information as a sign that the Army’s plans for the EIBCT program 

remain in flux almost a year after termination of the FCS program. 

The committee notes that since the termination of the Future Combat Systems program in June 2009, the Army has submitted an 

amended request for EIBCT fiscal year 2010 procurement funding, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
138 

an amended request for fiscal year 2011 procurement funds in 

March 2010, and two reprogramming requests for EIBCT funds in 

April 2010. In addition, the budget justification materials submitted in support of the fiscal year 2011 request contained numerous errors, including the embedding of advance procurement funds 

within procurement lines. The committee notes that the lack of fidelity in EIBCT budget request information may lead to denials of 

reprogramming requests, funding restrictions, or other actions 

taken by the committee to ensure that funding provided is not misused. 

Finally, the committee understands that with the termination of 

the non-line-of-sight-launch system program that relevant procurement funds provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 appear to be 

more than enough to fund two full brigade sets of the remaining 

program elements, plus additional test assets. With the program 

not set to complete initial operational test and evaluation until late 

fiscal year 2011, the committee believes that the procurement 

funds requested in the budget request are premature. 

The committee recommends $1.4 billion, a decrease of $208.3 

million, for EIBCT research and development. The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $682.7 million, for EIBCT procurement. 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors 

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 64664A for 

Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team (EIBCT) unattended ground 

sensor (UGS) development. 

The committee understands that the UGS development program 

will reach a total funding level of approximately $130.0 million at 

the end of fiscal year 2010 and that limited low-rate production has 

been approved. The committee is concerned that despite being six 

years into its development, test data from technical field tests and 

Limited User Tests (LUT) conducted in fiscal year 2009 show that 

the demonstrated reliability of the Tactical-UGS and Urban-UGS is 

still poor. As reported by Director, Operational Test and Evaluation 

(DOT&E) during the most recent LUT, both systems demonstrated 

poor communications connectivity, inadequate transmission ranges, 

poor image quality, and frequent system failures. The committee 

notes that the Increment 1 EIBCT program acquisition decision 

memorandum approved by the Defense Acquisition Executive on 

December 24, 2009, directs DOT&E and the Army to conduct a 

comparative test of EIBCT-equipped units with units equipped as 

currently deployed for operations. The committee believes that the 

results of the comparative test will be critical to determining 

whether the program of record should be continued, modified, or 

terminated. If the comparative test reveals that the program of 

record should go forward, the committee believes that it is in the 

best interests of the warfighter to conduct a full and open competition prior to full-rate production. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to require full and open competition 

prior to making full-rate procurement decisions; and to consider 

multi-source procurement. 

The committee recommends $7.5 million in PE 64664A, the full 

amount requested, for UGS research and development. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
139 

Focus for Minerva research 

The budget request contained $91.2 million in PE 61103A for 

Army university research initiatives. Of this amount, $15.3 million 

was requested for the Minerva Initiative. 

The committee continues to note the importance of using social 

science research and expertise to support key Department of Defense (DOD) missions, including irregular warfare, counterinsurgency, and stability and reconstruction operations. The Secretary of 

Defense established the Minerva Initiative to provide one of the 

primary mechanisms for the Department to foster basic social 

science and humanities research at the university level. 

After nearly two years in operation, the committee is concerned 

that the Department of Defense has not provided enough focus for 

the Minerva Initiative topics to develop an effective critical mass 

of talent concentrated on key mission areas. The original broad 

area announcement for the Minerva Initiative outlined seven topical areas. While these areas are all valuable in fostering 

foundational social science research for the Department and university researchers willing to work on topics of DOD interest, the 

committee is concerned that funds for the Minerva Initiative are 

spread too thinly to develop deep expertise in any of the current 

topic areas. 

The committee recommends $96.2 million, an increase of $5.0 

million, in PE 61103A to conduct research on how best to counter 

extremist ideologies. The committee notes elsewhere in this report 

on how the Department might structure such a counter-ideology 

program and how Minerva might support such a program. 

Future Combat Systems system-of-systems engineering and program 

management 

The budget request contained $568.7 million in PE 64661A for 

Future Combat Systems (FCS) system-of-systems engineering and 

program management. 

The committee remains concerned that more than a year after 

the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to terminate the FCS 

program of record that the contract for FCS has not been renegotiated to account for the dramatically reduced scope of the program, 

which is now the Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team program. 

The committee believes that the large amount of contractor ‘‘system-of-systems’’ integration and overhead requested exceeds what 

is needed given the reduction of the FCS program from 18 to just 

4 major program elements. The committee expects the renegotiated 

contract to require significantly less contractor overhead, program 

management, and systems integration in fiscal year 2011. In addition, the committee understands that termination costs for the nonline of sight cannon program will be substantially lower than originally forecast. 

The committee recommends $497.4 million, a decrease of $71.3 

million, in PE 64661A for FCS system-of-systems engineering and 

program management. 

Ground Combat Vehicle program 

The budget request contained $934.4 million in PE 65625A for 

development of the Army Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
140 

The committee supports the Army’s move away from the Future 

Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicle (MGV) path to modernizing the Army’s combat vehicle fleet. In the committee report 

(H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee noted 

that it was not inclined to support the high-risk path the Army was 

on with the MGV family of vehicles, which the committee was concerned would encounter significant technical challenges and, in the 

end, prove unaffordable given the Army’s many other needs. The 

committee believes that the projected cost of the MGVs, along with 

requirements ill-suited for the current operational environment, set 

the MGV effort on its ultimate path to termination by the Secretary of Defense in April 2009. 

The committee supports the initial acquisition strategy for the 

GCV program, which appears to be more disciplined, and focused 

on producing a single variant of a new ground combat vehicle with 

a design flexible enough to accommodate future upgrades. The committee believes that a future mix of upgraded M1 Abrams tanks, 

upgraded M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and new GCVs will provide 

the Army with a flexible mix of armored fighting platforms. In addition, the committee supports the current acquisition strategy for 

GCV that maintains competition throughout the technology development, and engineering and manufacturing development phases. 

However, the committee is concerned with some of the requirements in place for the GCV, which the committee believes are extremely ambitious in some areas. The committee notes that it was, 

first and foremost, poorly thought-through requirements that led 

FCS MGVs to eventual termination. Specifically, early limitations 

on MGV weight and size, based on what turned out to be flawed 

operational concepts, including C–130 transportability, led to an 

overly-complex MGV design that resulted in cost growth, unplanned weight increases, and significant schedule delays. The 

committee is concerned that, once again, the Army may be asking 

the defense industry to build a ‘‘gold-plated’’ vehicle that may take 

longer to develop than planned and prove to be extremely expensive to procure. 

The committee is also concerned that the Army chose to release 

a detailed request for proposals in February 2010, a full eight 

months before it completes the analysis of alternatives (AOA) for 

the GCV program. The Army’s choice to do so suggests that it is 

a pro-forma exercise that will in fact have little bearing on the initial contract awards planned for September 2010, and that the 

Army will not seriously consider upgrading or modifying current 

platforms. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Army to take two actions. 

First, the committee believes the Army must carefully review the 

requirements for the GCV program and consider a more incremental approach that separates ‘‘needs’’ from ‘‘wants.’’ While the 

committee supports the program’s early focus on vehicle and crew 

survivability, the committee is concerned that other requirements 

may prove too costly and complex. For example, while the committee understands that deployment of non-lethal weapons, the 

ability to intercept direct and indirect fire threats, aggressive fuel 

efficiency improvements, and the ability to defeat heavily armored 

vehicles at extended range may be desirable, it is concerned that 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
141 

requiring these capabilities in the initial GCV model could needlessly complicate the vehicle’s design, and could be included as incremental upgrades at a later time. Second, after streamlining the 

GCV requirements, the committee recommends that the Army conduct a thorough AOA before proceeding to technology development 

contract awards. Specifically, the committee believes the Army 

should carefully consider whether or not it is possible to upgrade 

current vehicles, including some foreign designs, to meet baseline 

GCV requirements on an accelerated schedule that could get a vehicle in the hands of troops more quickly than the current sevenyear timeline. The committee recommends $934.4 million, the full amount requested, for the Army GCV program. 

Maingate tactical network architecture 

The committee supports the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) 

program, but encourages the Army to explore alternative network 

solutions in order to mitigate the risk of JTRS fielding delays. The 

committee believes that one alternative could be provided by the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Maingate network 

gateway technology, which is intended to enable mobile ad hoc network communications between analogue and digital Army radio 

systems. The committee understands that the Army has conducted 

limited testing of networks using Maingate technology. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Director, Defense Research and Engineering to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 

by January 30, 2011, comparing the technological readiness, test 

performance, reliability, and cost of a notional Army tactical network using the JTRS Ground Mobile Radio running the Wideband 

Networking Waveform and Soldier Radio Waveform, and the 

Maingate network gateway. The report should also include a detailed description of the notional network’s composition and size. 

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

The committee is concerned that the tri-national Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) co-development program will 

deliver a capability that is not integrated with the Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) architecture and joint operational concept. The Army’s IAMD architecture relies on the IAMD 

Battle Command System (IBCS) to provide battle management and 

command and control (C2) across all Army air and missile defense 

sensors and shooters. IBCS also provides the interface to other air 

and missile defense battle management and C2 systems such as 

the Missile Defense Agency’s Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) and the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), which enables access to their 

sensors and interceptor systems. However, the MEADS program, 

as currently planned, does not include the IBCS. 

The committee is aware that the United States requested that its 

international partners restructure the MEADS program in the fall 

of 2008 and has proposed substituting IBCS as the MEADS battle 

manager. The committee believes that both United States and coalition forces benefit by leveraging a battle management and C2 system that enables access to a full complement of air and missile defense systems. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
142 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by December 

1, 2010, evaluating the options for restructuring the MEADS program structure and governance. The evaluation should include, at 

a minimum, an assessment of cost, schedule, performance, and 

international implications for each option. 

Military engineering advanced technology 

The budget request contained $27.4 million in PE 63734A for 

military engineering advanced technology. 

The committee notes that budget justification materials indicate 

that $20.5 million of this amount is for ‘‘Deployable Force Protection Technology Integration Demonstrations and Red Teaming.’’ 

The committee does not believe the demonstration and red teaming 

work described requires the requested funding level. 

The committee recommends $17.4 million, a decrease of $10.0 

million, in PE 63734A for military engineering advanced development. 

Non-line-of-sight launch system 

The budget request contained $81.3 million in PE 64646A for 

non-line-of-sight launch system (NLOS–LS) research and development. 

The committee notes that the Army terminated the NLOS–LS 

program in April 2010. However, the committee is concerned that 

the Army chose to terminate a program that had been touted for 

years as a key element in improving the lethality of light infantry 

brigades. The committee is also concerned that the Army is walking away from a $1.0 billion investment in research and development for this system. While the committee understands the need 

for the Army to reduce redundancy and fund other priorities, the 

committee believes that in this case the Army could have extended 

the engineering and manufacturing development phase for another 

year at a modest cost. This extension could have at least provided 

the Army with more options for procuring different versions of the 

missile, perhaps at a lower unit price. As a result, the committee 

has provided additional funding to the Navy elsewhere in this title 

to complete development of the NLOS–LS program. In addition, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to 

the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2011, on how 

it can use some of the technology developed under the NLOS–LS 

program in the future. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $81.3 million, 

in PE 64646A for NLOS–LS research and development. 

Paladin Integrated Management program 

The budget request contained $53.6 million in PE 64854A for 

Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program research and development. 

The committee notes that the Army has delayed the planned 

milestone C low-rate initial production decision for the PIM program, due to technological development challenges. As a result, the 

committee believes additional research and development funds are 

needed for the PIM program in fiscal year 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
143 

The committee recommends $105.6 million, an increase of $52.0 

million, in PE 64854A for the PIM program. 

Self-inerting munitions technology development 

The budget request contained $42.6 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology, but included no funds for selfinerting munitions technology development. 

The committee notes unexploded ordnance (UXO) is common to 

all munitions, and that it is particularly significant in the case of 

cluster munitions where the UXO rate can be as high as 20 to 30 

percent. The committee recognizes these items function as unintended landmines, limiting battle-space command and control 

through increased hazards to friendly forces during combat operations. They also pose continued hazards to civilians and peacekeepers in post-conflict environments. The committee understands 

the purpose of this program is to develop technology that removes 

humanitarian hazards, prevents illicit reuse, and protects the environment from explosives in UXO. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

62624A for the development of self-inerting munition technology. 

Social science research capacity 

The budget request contained $195.8 million in PE 61102A, $429.8 million in PE 61153N, and $351.0 million in PE 61102F for 

basic research activities, including support for specific researchers. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has a 

program for supporting early career postdoctoral scientists and engineers by funding creative research opportunities. Each military 

department sponsors a Young Investigator Program (YIP), or some 

equivalent, that funds research by exceptional young faculty members in order to encourage their teaching and research careers to 

provide the Department of Defense with a future pipeline of scientific talent. 

Historically, YIP and similar programs have focused on supporting researchers in traditional physical and biological sciences of 

interest to the Department. With the increasing importance and 

emphasis on social science research, the committee believes that 

the Department of Defense should leverage YIP to encourage promising young social science researchers as well. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $198.8 million, an increase of $3.0 million, in PE 61102A; $432.8 million, an increase 

of $3.0 million, in PE 61153N; and $354.0 million, an increase of 

$3.0 million, in PE 61102F for YIP and equivalent programs to 

fund promising faculty members to encourage social science research that supports defense needs. 

Stryker vehicle improvised explosive device mitigation technology 

The committee notes that attacks on Stryker vehicles in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) have resulted in significant casualties, and that the Army is researching a new ‘‘double V’’ hull design 

to provide improved protection against improvised explosive devices 

(IED). In addition to this effort, the committee understands that 

the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO) is evaluating other IED survivability technologies that 

could be applied to a wide range of military vehicles, including 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
144 

Army Stryker vehicles. These technologies include roof or sidemounted IED blast-attenuation seating systems, rocket propelled 

grenade fence armor, and IED mine blast armor kits, all of which 

could mitigate the effects of IED attacks in OEF. The committee 

also understands that some of these technologies have already been 

fielded on Marine Corps and North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

ally vehicles in OEF. Further, the committee understands that 

these technologies could be installed in the near-term on current 

Army Stryker vehicles during reset or in theater. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Director, JIEDDO to provide a report by January 30, 2011, to the congressional defense committees evaluating 

these technologies, their potential for installation on existing 

Stryker or other vehicles, and any actions taken by JIEDDO or the 

Army to field these technologies. 

Tactical electronic surveillance systems 

The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 63766A for tactical electronic surveillance systems. 

The committee notes that budget justification materials indicate that $9.0 million of this amount is for requirements analysis and 

validation, and that this represents a $5.0 million increase over the 

fiscal year 2010 funding level for this project. The committee does 

not believe the activities described justify this increase in funds. The committee recommends $12.9 million, a decrease of $5.0 million, in PE 63766A for tactical electronic surveillance systems advanced development. 

NAVY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $17.7 billion for Navy research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee recommends $18.0 billion, an increase of $285.2 million to the budget 

request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are identified in 

the table below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 

following the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
145 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here HR491.092
146 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here HR491.093
147 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here HR491.094
148 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here HR491.095
149 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here HR491.096
150 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here HR491.097
151 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here HR491.098
152 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here HR491.099
153 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here HR491.100
154 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here HR491.101
155 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here HR491.102
156 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here HR491.103
157 

Items of Special Interest 

Composite deckhouse design for DDG 51 flight III class ships 

The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 63563N for 

ship concept advanced design, but contained no funds for development of a composite deckhouse for flight III of the DDG 51 class 

destroyer. 

The committee supports the Navy decision to re-start the DDG 

51 class destroyer acquisition program and to work toward a flight 

III version of the vessel by fiscal year 2016. To support the goal 

of that flight of ships of advanced radar and ship control systems, 

the Navy must make significant design changes to the class, in 

order to upgrade power and cooling capability. The committee realizes that those design changes have the potential to add significant 

weight to the vessel which could limit operational effectiveness. 

The committee supports an effort, aimed at reducing overall lifecycle costs of the class, to develop a composite deckhouse for the 

flight III ships that would significantly reduce the weight to center 

of buoyancy ratio and increase operational effectiveness of the vessel. The committee notes that the technological advancements for 

the composite deckhouse of the DDG 1000 program can significantly aid this effort. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63563N for development of a composite deckhouse for potential use 

on flight III DDG 51 class destroyers. 

Development of hybrid multi-functional composites for submarine 

structures 

The budget request contained $608.6 million in PE 63561N for 

advanced submarine systems development, but contained no funding for the development of hybrid multi-functional composites for 

submarine structures. 

The committee notes the excellent results of the Virginia-class 

submarine program of composite technology in the areas of the 

wide aperture array and main ballast tank vent gratings. The committee understands the use of composites is beneficial in life-cycle 

maintenance costs, as well as weight savings, which are always a 

key element of submarine design. The committee understands that 

emerging technologies using hybrid composite structures have the 

potential to continue to reduce weight with increased strength for 

many submarine applications. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63561N for continued development of hybrid multi-functional composite technology. 

Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended Range Munition 

The budget request contained $108.9 million in PE 26623M for 

Marine Corps ground combat support research and development. 

Of this amount, $10.4 million was requested for the Expeditionary 

Fire Support System (EFFS) Precision Extended Range Munition 

(PERM) program. 

The committee notes that the EFFS 120mm mortar system will 

be capable of firing the Army Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) round, which will offer similar performance to the proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
158 

posed EFFS PERM round. The committee also notes that the 

PERM round will not achieve low-rate initial production until fiscal 

year 2015 and that the Army APMI round is set to field in early 

in fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends that the Marine 

Corps evaluate the performance of the APMI prior to beginning a 

development program to produce a munition with similar performance. 

The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $10.4 million, 

in PE 26623M for the EFFS PERM program. 

Future integrated nuclear power systems 

The budget request contained $366.5 million in PE 63570N for 

advanced nuclear power systems, but contained no funds for development of small scale pressurized water reactors suitable for destroyer-sized vessels or for alternative nuclear power systems using 

thorium liquid salt technology. 

The committee remains committed to an all nuclear powered 

naval battle force. The committee notes that significant challenges 

in size and weight of nuclear technology make inclusion of integrated nuclear power systems on destroyer sized vessels currently 

impossible. Therefore, the committee believes that additional funding in engineering research and development is needed to design 

a smaller scale version of a naval pressurized water reactor, or to 

design a new reactor type potentially using a thorium liquid salt 

reactor developed for maritime use. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

63570N for research and design efforts to develop an integrated nuclear power system capable of use on destroyer-sized vessels either 

using a pressurized water reactor or a thorium liquid salt reactor. 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System 

The budget request contained $40.9 million in PE 63235N for the 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System (HIGPS). 

HIGPS is designed to develop the technology required to demonstrate the capability to use the existing Iridium satellite constellation to enhance current GPS navigation and timing capabilities. The benefits of this approach have not been sufficiently justified and the committee does not recommend funding for this request. 

The committee recommends no funds in PE 63235N for the HighIntegrity Global Positioning System, a decrease of $40.9 million 

from the budget request. 

Marine Corps military fleet simulation computer co-simulation 

The budget request contained $40.5 million in PE 63635M for 

Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System, but included no 

funds for Marine Corps fleet simulation computer co-simulation 

technology programs. 

The committee understands the application of computer co-simulation tools could be used to increase fuel efficiency of Marine 

Corps combat vehicles and tactical wheeled vehicle fleets. 

The committee recommends $41.3 million, an increase of $800 

thousand, in PE 63635M for fleet simulation computer co-simulation technology programs for the Marine Corps. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
159 

Marine operations, Scripps Institute 

The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 61103N for 

University Research Initiatives, but contained no funds for efforts 

to upgrade facilities used extensively by Navy research vessels at 

the Nimitz Marine Facility in Point Loma, California. 

The committee understands the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, in affiliation with the University of California, San Diego, 

is undertaking a major program to replace pier and wharf facilities 

at their Point Loma location. The committee is aware that these facilities are extensively used by Navy research vessels and are instrumental for continued naval oceanographic projects. Because of 

the unique requirements of Navy research vessels and other vessels 

of the Department of Defense for pier supplied electrical distribution systems, information technology systems, and support services 

such as heavy lift cranes and advanced fendering systems, additional funding is required above the levels funded by the institution 

for construction of the new wharf and pier facility to effectively 

berth Navy research vessels. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 

61103N for integration of advanced electrical, information technology, crane, and associated support services of the new wharf 

and pier facilities at the Nimitz Marine Facility to optimize efficiency for Navy research vessels. The committee considers this 

funding appropriate for appropriation in the research and development account since this funding is not targeted to construction or 

repair but rather to upgrade the research capability of the facility. 

Marine personnel carrier 

The budget request contained $108.9 million in PE 26623M for 

Marine Corps ground combat support research and development. 

Of this amount, $26.8 million was requested for the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program. 

The committee notes that the program’s planned milestone A decision in March 2010 has been indefinitely postponed. As a result, 

the MPC program will not need the full amount of research and development funds requested. The committee recommends $6.8 million, a decrease of $20.0 million, in PE 26623M for Marine Personnel Carrier research and development. 

Navy non-line-of-sight launch system development 

The budget request contained $226.3 million in PE 63581N for 

Littoral Combat Ship mission module research and development 

but contained no funds for the non-line-of-sight launch system 

(NLOS–LS). 

The committee notes that the Army’s termination of the NLOS– 

LS could leave the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) without sufficient capability to defeat small boat threats and unable to provide 

precision fire support to Marine Corps forces. The committee is informed that the NLOS–LS will likely require only one more year 

of research and development work to achieve threshold requirements. Therefore, in order to take advantage of the $1.5 billion in 

development funds spent to date, the committee encourages the 

Navy to complete development of the NLOS–LS system for use on 

the LCS. The committee also directs the Assistant Secretary of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
160 

Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by December 15, 

2010, on the feasibility and utility of the Navy completing development of the NLOS–LS. The report should include an analysis of 

possible unit cost reduction options. The committee recommends $301.3 million, an increase of $75.0 

million, in PE 63581N for research and development of the NLOS– 

LS for use on the LCS. 

Navy Unmanned Combat Air System 

The budget request contained $266.4 million in PE 64402N for 

the Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System (N–UCAS) development 

and demonstration program. 

The committee notes that the N–UCAS development program is 

exhibiting less than optimal program execution as it relates to cost, 

schedule, and performance and the program is currently undergoing an acquisition strategy restructuring to improve the aforementioned areas of execution. The committee understands that the 

primary purpose of the N–UCAS program is to demonstrate the 

ability to launch and recover from an aircraft carrier a tailless, remotely piloted aircraft. However, the committee also understands 

that the N–UCAS program may be putting efforts towards developing low observable materials and technologies that are not required for successful completion of the required demonstration. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of the 

Navy review the scope of the program for any unneeded technology 

development efforts that may be occurring in the N–UCAS development and demonstration program. 

Next Generation Enterprise Network 

In the conference report (H. Rept. 111–288) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the conferees expressed concern over the pace of acquisition decisions that 

are necessary to transition from the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet 

(NMCI) to the Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN). The 

committee reiterates its support for the overall segmentation strategy for NGEN, which would break the single omnibus contract of 

NMCI into multiple smaller contracts. The committee believes that 

such an approach will not only promote increased competition in 

the future, but it will also support the development of greater inhouse capability within the Navy and provide for a level of operational control by naval personnel over the network that is not 

available currently under the NMCI contract. 

Photonic digital beamforming systems 

The budget request contained $83.9 million in PE 62271N for 

electromagnetic systems applied research, but contained no funds 

for development of photonic digital beamforming technology. 

The committee is interested in the development of new technologies that accomplish multiple functions of legacy technology. 

One such development is the introduction of photonic digital 

beamforming systems. The committee believes this new technology 

has the potential to significantly reduce radio frequency communication paths currently used on naval warships, saving on weight, 

spare parts, logistics support, and personnel manning. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
161 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 

62271N for development of photonic digital beamforming technology. 

Small diameter bomb increment II 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 64329N for the 

Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) program. 

The SDB II is to provide the warfighter the capability to attack 

mobile targets in all weather, from stand-off range. SDB II will be 

integrated on the F–15E for the Air Force and Joint Strike Fighter 

variants for the Navy. 

The committee is aware of delays in the Air Force’s SDB II contract award. The committee understands the Navy had planned to 

integrate and qualify the SDB II and its carriage rack onto the 

Joint Strike Fighter carrier and short takeoff vertical landing 

variants beginning in November 2009. The Air Force contract is not 

expected to be awarded until June 2010. The committee notes the 

Navy only requires six months of funding in fiscal year 2010 because the development decision has slipped for the SDB II program, causing a corresponding slip in the Navy’s plans to contract 

for integration and qualification of the SDB II. As a result, the program office has identified $26.0 million in fiscal year 2010 funds 

as excess to program needs. The committee recommends $18.0 million, a decrease of $26.0 

million, in PE 64329N for the SDB II program. 

Ultra High Frequency Hosted Payloads program 

The budget request contained $405.7 million in PE 33109N for 

the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) program, but contained 

no funds for the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) Hosted Payloads program. 

MUOS will replace the existing UHF Follow-On (UFO) constellation and provide a much higher data rate capability for mobile 

users. However, the MUOS program has suffered significant schedule delays that may create an unacceptable gap in critical UHF 

service. 

Narrowband UHF satellite communications (SATCOM) provide 

tactical, over-the-horizon radio links for our men and women in 

combat in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as around the world. The committee understands that 

the existing UHF system is oversubscribed by 200 to 300 percent 

and that user requests for access to UHF SATCOM have often been 

denied due to a lack of available channels, forcing our troops to use 

less reliable line-of-sight radios. The current UFO fleet of satellites 

is reaching the end of life and the delays in the follow-on MUOS 

program risk an unacceptable degradation of service. As a result, 

the Navy is pursuing a diverse set of mitigation measures that provide an incremental strategy to augment the declining UHF communications capacity. 

To that end, the committee encourages full utilization of commercially-hosted government payloads and the development of additional UHF augmentation by the commercial satellite industry for 

military use. Specifically, the committee supports the UHF Hosted 

Payloads program that was cancelled in February 2009 and the potential it holds both as a transitional gap-filler between the UFO 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
162 

and MUOS systems, and as an ongoing augmentation providing 

critical support to tens of thousands of legacy UHF terminals. The committee recommends $410.7 million, an increase of $5.0 

million, in PE 33109N to explore the entire range of options beyond 

the MUOS program for meeting UHF SATCOM needs. 

VH–(XX) acquisition program and VH–3D/VH–60N legacy fleet 

sustainment 

The committee notes with disappointment that the Navy in- vested $3.3 billion in the VH–71 program with little to no return 

on investment for the taxpayer. Furthermore, the committee understands that termination costs for the program may reach an additional $555.0 million. Due to termination, the Navy will also be required to invest additional resources, beyond originally anticipated, 

to sustain the current VH–3D and VH–60N legacy fleet of executive helicopters. The committee notes that in the new program to 

develop a replacement Presidential helicopter, the Navy plans to 

produce at least two airframes, an executive model to transport the 

President, members of his family, and heads-of-state, and a passenger/cargo variant to support the President during times of emergency. The committee supports this acquisition strategy. Elsewhere 

in this title, the committee includes a provision that would require 

the Comptroller General to conduct an annual review of the VH– 

(XX) acquisition program. Details of the review requirements are 

contained in the legislative provisions section of this report. 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $27.2 billion for Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee 

recommends $27.3 billion, an increase of $22.6 million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force are identified 

in the table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
163 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here HR491.104
164 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here HR491.105
165 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here HR491.106
166 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here HR491.107
167 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here HR491.108
168 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here HR491.109
169 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here HR491.110
170 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here HR491.111
171 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here HR491.112
172 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here HR491.113
173 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here HR491.114
174 

Items of Special Interest 

Conversion of excess ballistic missiles for space transportation uses 

Section 205 of the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 

105–303) requires a certification by a U.S. Government agency to 

the Congress at least 30 days before such agency converts an excess ballistic missile for use as a space transportation vehicle if the 

action: ‘‘(a) would result in cost savings to the federal government 

when compared to the cost of acquiring space transportation services from United States commercial providers; (b) meets all mission 

requirements of the agency, including performance, schedule, and 

risk requirements; (c) is consistent with international obligations of 

the United States; and (d) is approved by the Secretary of Defense 

or his designee.’’ 

In a recent Government Accountability Office decision, ‘‘In the 

Matter of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation,’’ File B– 

402186, February 1, 2010, the Air Force testified that it interprets 

the term ‘‘conversion’’ to ‘‘occur when the excess [intercontinental 

ballistic missile] assets are removed from their storage place and 

united with commercial components something that typically does 

not occur until launch is imminent and long after the contract or 

delivery order for the applicable launch service has been awarded.’’ 

Given that the purpose of Public Law 105–303 is to promote the 

United States commercial space industry, the committee is troubled by the Air Force interpretation of the term ‘‘conversion’’ and 

believes that the certification should be provided to Congress with 

sufficient time to review and take action, if necessary. The committee recommends that an agency considering conversion should 

provide a certification concurrent with awarding a contract or delivery order for space transportation services. Moreover, the certification letter should provide sufficient financial detail to demonstrate that the action would result in cost savings to the United 

States. The committee notes that while the original development 

and procurement costs of excess ballistic missile assets are sunk 

costs, the costs to refurbish or modify excess assets for space 

launch or suborbital use are current costs and should be paid for 

by the agency proposing to use the assets. 

Cyber Boot Camp 

The budget request contained $117.3 million in PE 62788F for 

work to develop better command, control, and communications systems within the Air Force, including funds to support the Advanced 

Course in Engineering (ACE) Cyber Boot Camp summer program 

for the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). 

The committee is encouraged by efforts at the Air Force Research 

Laboratory Rome Research Site (AFRL/RRS) to develop educational 

curriculum to train the future workforce of cyber operations experts. The mission of ACE is to develop ROTC cadets into cyber officers. ACE is a 10-week summer program consisting of classes, onthe-job mentoring, and officer development that targets the top students in computer-related disciplines and teaches them to become 

original thinkers, problem solvers, and technical leaders. ACE is 

the only cyber education offered by the Department of Defense for 

ROTC cadets. The committee recognizes that this program is vital 

to ensuring a robust information technology workforce that is capaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
175 

ble of handling current and future cyber threats to our systems. 

The committee believes ACE Cyber Boot Camp should be expanded 

beyond the Air Force to include ROTC cadets from other military 

services. 

The committee recommends $118.3 million, an increase of $1.0 

million, in PE 62788F for AFRL/RRS to support the expansion of 

the ACE Cyber Boot curriculum to other service ROTC participants, and to provide for additional 10-week courses to accommodate this expansion. 

Defense applications of commercial satellites 

The committee is aware of numerous opportunities for hosting 

defense payloads on commercial satellites. For example, the committee understands that it may be possible to place weather data 

sensors on a commercial satellite platform that would augment or 

replace dedicated weather satellite systems. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the 

Air Force, to conduct a study of the options for hosting defense payloads on commercial satellites. The committee expects the study to 

identify feasible options that offer potential savings and the specific 

actions required to take advantage of these opportunities. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit a report on the study 

to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle common upper stage engine 

The budget request contained $30.2 million in PE 64853 for 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, but included no 

funds for research and development to achieve a common upper 

stage between the Atlas and Delta launch vehicles. In fiscal year 

2010, Congress provided $20.0 million for this purpose. The committee supports continuing work to modify Delta IV RL–10 upper 

stage engines to the Atlas V RL–10 configuration to enable efficient 

use of the existing RL–10 inventory. The committee recommends $58.2 million, an increase of $28.0 

million, for research and development of a common upper stage engine for the Delta and Atlas launch vehicles. 

F–35 aircraft 

The budget request contained $2.4 billion in PEs 64800F, 

64800N, and 64800M for development of the F–35 aircraft, but contained no funds for development of a competitive F–35 propulsion 

system. The budget request also contained $7.7 billion in Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force and Aircraft Procurement, Navy for procurement of 22 F–35As, 13 F–35Bs, and 7 F–35Cs. 

The competitive F–35 propulsion system program is developing 

the F136 engine, which would provide a competitive alternative to 

the currently-planned F135 engine. For the past four years, the 

committee recommended increases for the F–35 competitive propulsion system, and notes that in all cases, funds have been appropriated by Congress for this purpose. Despite section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), which requires the Secretary of Defense to obligate and 

expend sufficient annual amounts for the continued development 

and procurement of a competitive propulsion system for the F–35, 

the committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
176 

(DOD) has, for the fifth consecutive year, chosen not to comply with 

both the spirit and intent of this law by opting not to include funds 

for this purpose in the budget request. 

In the committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H. Rept. 111–166), the committee noted cost increases in the F135 development program, as 

well as cost increases for the procurement of F135 engines between 

December 2005 and December 2008. A March 2010 report on the 

Joint Strike Fighter by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) notes that F135 engine development cost is now estimated 

to cost $7.3 billion, a 50 percent increase over the original contract 

award. In its report, GAO also notes that for the fiscal year 2009 

F135 engine contract, the negotiated price for the F–35B engine 

and lift fan was 21 percent higher than the budget estimate, and 

the negotiated unit cost for the F–35A engine was 42 percent higher than budgeted. Over the past year, as a result of these cost increases in fiscal year 2009, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics directed that a Joint Assessment Team (JAT) review the F135 cost structure, and the JAT concluded that engine contractor improvement plans were credible but 

challenging, and would require additional investment by the contractor for cost reduction initiatives. 

On February 23, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense submitted to the committee an update of the 2007 DOD ‘‘Joint Strike 

Fighter Alternate Engine Acquisition and Independent Coast Analysis’’ for the competitive engine program which noted that an investment of $2.9 billion over six years in additional cost would be 

required to finish F136 engine development and to conduct directed 

buys to prepare the F136 for competitive procurement of F–35 engines in 2017. This report also noted that long-term costs for either 

a one-engine or two-engine competitive acquisition strategy are the 

same, on a net present value basis. 

Given the F135 development and procurement cost increases and 

that long-term F–35 engine costs would be the same for a competitive F–35 engine acquisition strategy, the committee is puzzled by 

the Department’s decisions over the past five years to not include 

an F–35 competitive propulsion system program in its budget requests. The committee remains unwavering in its belief that the 

non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive program, such as 

better engine performance, improved contractor responsiveness, a 

more robust industrial base, increased engine reliability and improved operational readiness, strongly favor continuing the F–35 

competitive propulsion system program. Therefore, the committee 

recommends a total increase of $485.0 million for the competitive 

engine program in PEs 64800F, 64800N, and 64800M as noted in 

the funding tables elsewhere in this report. 

Over the past year, the F–35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and F– 

35 contractor failed to meet promised expectations with regard to 

cost and schedule performance. As a result, in addition to the JAT, 

the Department of Defense conducted two other reviews of the F– 

35 program which included a 2009 update to the 2008 Joint Estimating Team (JET), known as JET 2, and chartered an independent manufacturing review team (IMRT). The JET 2 was 

tasked to conduct an independent cost and schedule estimate of the 

development and production program, while the IMRT reviewed 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
177 

production capacity and risk. The JET 2 concluded that the F–35 

development program would take 30 months longer and cost some 

$3.0 billion more, and the IMRT concluded that the contractor’s 

planned production ramp rates were high risk and not achievable 

within the contractor’s planned timeframe. To reduce development 

and production risk, the Department of Defense proposes to procure one additional F–35C developmental test aircraft; stand-up an 

additional software simulation facility; utilize three operational F– 

35s for developmental test purposes; adjust the production profile 

in line with the IMRT recommendations and reduce planned production in the Future Years Defense Program by 122 aircraft; and 

increase amounts budgeted for F–35 development and production. 

Together, these actions are projected to delay the completion of F– 

35 development by 13 months compared to last year’s plan, and 

cost $2.8 billion more. In accordance with section 2433 of title 10, 

United States Code, the Secretary of the Air Force informed the 

committee on March 25, 2010, that the F–35 program will exceed 

unit cost thresholds by more than 50 percent compared to the original baseline estimate. 

On March 11, 2010, in testimony before the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics described the F–35 program as having 

‘‘unprecedented concurrency’’ of development, test, and production 

activities. On March 24, 2010, at a hearing held jointly by the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation testified that 

‘‘the primary issues with the Joint Strike Fighter program have 

been late delivery of test aircraft and the failure to adjust to the 

reality by building and resourcing realistic system development 

and test plans, as well as plans for producing and delivering aircraft.’’ Additionally, on March 24, 2010, GAO’s Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management testified to the Subcommittee on 

Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces that the ‘‘DOD intends to procure up to 307 aircraft at a cost of $58.2 billion before completing developmental 

flight testing by mid-fiscal year 2015.’’ The committee notes that, 

under current plans in the spring of 2015, the Department will 

have requested a total of 550 aircraft, over 22 percent of the 

planned procurement of 2,443 F–35s, before developmental testing 

is complete. The committee also notes that, notwithstanding the 

JAT, JET 2, and IMRT findings and continued unprecedented research and development and procurement concurrency, the request 

for 43 total F–35 aircraft for fiscal year 2011 is the same as projected in fiscal year 2009 for fiscal year 2011. In its testimony on 

March 24, 2010, GAO also noted that ‘‘with most of development 

testing still ahead, the risk and impact from required design 

changes are significant,’’ and may require ‘‘alterations to the production process, changes to the supply base and costly retrofitting 

of aircraft already produced and fielded.’’ Consequently, the committee remains concerned that despite the Department’s recent reduction of 122 aircraft in the Future Years Defense Program, the 

F–35 production ramp rate may still too high and the Department 

should consider further reductions until developmental testing is 

complete. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
178 

For fiscal year 2011, the committee recommends authorization of 

the budget request for 42 aircraft, subject to the Department’s completion of certain milestones planned by the Department for calendar year 2010. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 141) which would require the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to certify, not later than January 15, 

2011, that certain milestones have been completed before an 

amount necessary for the procurement of more than 30 F–35 aircraft would be obligated or expended. 

Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle and Broad Area Maritime 

Surveillance system commonality 

The Air Force’s Global Hawk unmanned aerial system (UAS) and 

the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) system were 

planned to achieve maximum system commonality and interoperability. 

The committee is concerned that differing, evolving service 

unique requirements, coupled with Global Hawk UAS vanishing 

vendor issues are resulting in a divergence in each service’s basic 

goal of maximum system commonality and interoperability, particularly with regard to the communications systems. 

The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to certify and provide written notification of compliance to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2011, that he has reviewed the communications 

requirements and acquisition strategy for both the Global Hawk 

UAS and BAMS systems programs, that the requirements of each 

service’s communications systems have been validated, and the acquisition strategy being executed for each system achieves the 

greatest possible commonality and represents the most cost effective option for each program. 

Metals Affordability Initiative 

The budget request contained $33.4 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapon systems. 

Congress has supported the Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI) 

as a peer review process to provide science and technology funding 

for promising aerospace projects in the Air Force advanced materials program with the objective of improving the strength and durability of materials available to the warfighter, as well as reduce 

costs. The committee continues to support government-industry collaboration provided through MAI. It provides significant improvements in the manufacturing of specialty metals for aerospace applications for the government and aerospace industry, and provides 

improved affordability of aerospace metals. Further, the committee 

continues to encourage the Air Force to budget for this highly successful initiative in future years. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
179 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

The budget request contained $325.5 million in PE 35178F for 

the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System (NPOESS). 

This tri-agency program, involving the Department of Defense, 

the Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, was established in 1994 to combine the 

weather satellite programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Air Force. In the committee 

report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee expressed concern about the significant cost, schedule and management challenges facing the program. 

Section 913 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the President to develop 

a strategy for the management and funding of the NPOESS program and an implementation plan to execute this strategy. The section also limited the expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2010 until 

reports on the strategy and the plan were submitted to Congress. 

On February 1, 2010, the Executive Office of the President announced its intention to restructure the NPOESS program by terminating the joint procurement of weather satellites and assigning 

responsibility for each of the three planned orbits to the agency 

holding the majority of the interest in that orbit. The Department 

of Commerce will populate the afternoon orbit and the Department 

of Defense will populate the early morning orbit. The U.S. Government will continue to rely on the European Organisation for the 

Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) to provide 

weather data from the mid-morning orbit period. 

On March 12, 2010, the Director of the Office of Management 

and the Budget and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy submitted a report on the strategy and implementation plan required by section 913 of Public Law 111–84. The report 

explained that the Department of Defense would identify the path 

forward to accomplishing the early morning orbit mission by reviewing its requirements consistent with its acquisition regulations, making a Material Development Decision, and then performing an Analysis of Alternatives. The committee does not expect 

this process to be completed in less than a year. 

The report also stated that the Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2011 ‘‘will remain unchanged to allow work to 

continue on the satellite components as well as to transition the 

afternoon acquisition efforts to NOAA.’’ The committee has received 

no information from the Department of Defense on how it intends 

to support continued work on satellite components in fiscal year 

2011 or how current work related to the afternoon orbit will be 

transitioned to NOAA. 

The committee does not support additional funding, beyond that 

currently available in fiscal year 2010, for the acquisition of a satellite for the afternoon orbit until a transition plan has been prepared and until the Department of Defense has completed its process for determining the path forward for populating the morning 

orbit. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
180 

The committee recommends $25.5 million, a decrease of $300.0 

million, in PE 35178F for NPOESS. 

Next-generation military satellite communications technology development 

The budget request included no funds in PE 64436F for next-generation military satellite communications technology development. 

In the conference report (H. Rept. 111–288) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Congress 

authorized creation of this program element to carry out technology 

development efforts, in part to fill gaps left by the cancellation of 

the transformational satellite communications program. The committee considers it a priority to continue developing sufficiently 

mature communication technologies that could be used on future 

blocks of current communication satellites or, eventually, on nextgeneration communication satellites to minimize the technical, cost, 

and schedule risk. The committee is especially interested in risk reduction efforts that could have applications on future satellites, and 

in military-unique radiation hardening requirements and techniques with a focus on reducing the cost, weight, and complexity 

of current technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 

64436F for next-generation military satellite communications technology development. 

Non-volatile hardened memory 

The committee recognizes that non-volatile, radiation-hardened 

memory provides a dedicated, light-weight storage capacity with 

important defense applications. The committee therefore directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to prepare a technology development and 

investment plan to ensure that the U.S. Government continues 

along a near-term path to develop and produce eight megabyte or 

greater non-volatile, radiation-hardened memory chips. The committee further directs the Secretary to deliver this plan to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011. 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The budget request contained $94.0 million in PE 64857F for 

Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). However, the budget request did not include sufficient funding to accelerate the development of critical ORS infrastructure, and to acquire enabling technologies. 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) established the ORS Office to respond to the needs of the joint force commander and to build the 

enabling infrastructure to deliver space capabilities in operationally relevant timelines. The committee commends the progress 

made thus far on the ORS–1 satellite, which has been a warfighter 

priority, and the development of an open architecture with a plugin-play bus, modular payloads, and standard interfaces. In this 

next stage, the committee recommends increased funding to further 

develop such activities. The committee also supports accelerating 

the development of critical infrastructure to expand user access to 

ORS capabilities and data. These efforts would expand ground and 

communications segments providing data to multiple operational 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
181 

commands and users. This work would also accelerate development 

of a space vehicle that would accommodate multiple payloads on 

shorter timelines. 

The committee recommends $134.0 million, an increase of $40.0 

million, in PE 64857F to acquire additional ORS satellites to meet 

commanders’ urgent needs, support enabling technologies, and to 

further develop and procure an open architecture with a plug-inplay bus, modular payloads, and standard interfaces. 

Space Based Space Surveillance 

The budget request contained $185.9 million in PE 64425F for 

the Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) project. 

The SBSS project is a critical priority for space situational 

awareness (SSA) and is structured into two acquisition efforts: a 

Block 10 system and follow-on systems. Launch of the Block 10 system has been delayed several times and is currently scheduled for 

July 2010. Delays in the Block 10 satellite launch have affected the 

schedule for the follow on product development and delivery, reducing the funding requirement for SBSS in fiscal year 2011. 

SBSS will support SSA by providing timely, actionable data for 

detecting, tracking and identifying objects in space in order to execute global space operations, provide threat assessment and warning, conduct operational-level space campaign planning and strategy, and maintain the space operating picture. After launch, the 

Block 10 system is expected to operate until January 2016. The 

committee understands that the Air Force intends to decelerate acquisition of the follow-on SBSS system to incorporate lessons 

learned from initial operation of the Block 10 system. The committee recommends $155.9 million, a decrease of $30.0 

million, in PE 64425F for the Space Based Space Surveillance 

project. 

Star tracker technology 

The committee is concerned with the decline and potential loss 

of domestically produced, survivable, moderate accuracy star trackers for defense and national security satellite programs. The committee believes that star trackers are a foundational technology for 

enabling both military and civilian satellites to fulfill their missions. The committee understands that star trackers should be survivable against current and near-term threats, including laser illumination and exo-atmospheric nuclear detonations. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare 

a technology development and investment plan to ensure that the 

U.S. Government retains the ability to produce moderate accuracy, 

survivable star trackers. The committee further directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit this plan to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011. 

Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for Space 

The budget request contained $111.9 million in PE 62601F for 

space technology, but contained no funds for the Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for Space (TRIOS) project. 

The TRIOS project is designed to expand the number of private 

sector companies, universities, and government entities participating in the nation’s small satellite space sector. This expansion 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
182 

should directly benefit Department of Defense space organizations 

at Kirtland Air Force Base, the Air Force Research Lab Space Vehicles and Directed Energy Directorates, the Operationally Responsive Space Office, and the Space Development and Test Wing, by 

providing ready access to innovative vendors and well-qualified scientists, engineers, and technicians. This will expedite the development and launch of the new small, lower-cost, responsive space systems required to support the Department’s numerous and rapidly 

changing warfighter missions around the world. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

62601F for the Technology Research and Innovation Outreach for 

Space project. 

DEFENSE-WIDE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $20.7 billion for Defense-Wide research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee 

recommends $20.7 billion, an increase of $51.5 million to the budget request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2011 research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Defense-Wide program are discussed following the table. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
183 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here HR491.115
184 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here HR491.116
185 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here HR491.117
186 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here HR491.118
187 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here HR491.119
188 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here HR491.120
189 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here HR491.121
190 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here HR491.122
191 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here HR491.123
192 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here HR491.124
193 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here HR491.125
194 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here HR491.126
195 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here HR491.127
196 

Items of Special Interest 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and defense against sea-based missile attacks 

The committee commends the Department of Defense funding increase for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program to advance the capabilities of sea-based missile defense. The committee 

believes the investment in sea-based missile defenses will serve to 

strengthen the security of the United States. Nevertheless, the 

committee believes there are additional steps the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) should take to expand sea-based missile defense capabilities. 

First, the committee believes MDA should increase its collaboration with the Navy to ensure sea-based ballistic missile defenses 

are fully integrated into the broader missile defense Command and 

Control, Battle Management, and Communications system. Additionally, both the Navy and MDA should work to see Aegis BMD 

ships receive the widest array of off-board sensor data necessary to 

support theater, regional and national missile defense operations. 

Second, the committee understands that the Department’s objectives for pursuing early-intercept capabilities are to handle large 

raid sizes, provide more shoot-look-shoot opportunities, constrain 

countermeasure deployments, and hedge against advanced threats. 

The committee believes that capability enhancements planned for 

the Standard Missile-3 (SM–3) interceptor may provide such early 

intercept capability. Specifically, the next-generation SM–3 Block 

IIA interceptor with a planned increase in velocity and SM–3 Block 

IIB interceptor with a planned lighter kill vehicle, flexible propulsion, and upgraded fire control software, should enable greater 

early-intercept capability when fielded in either a ship-based configuration or relocatable land-based configuration. The committee 

therefore encourages MDA to continue the requisite technology development and maturation of these promising capabilities. 

Finally, the committee remains concerned about the nation’s vulnerability to cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles 

that could be launched from off the coast. This vulnerability is particularly acute for the east coast of the United States. Accordingly, 

the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, 

with contribution from the Director of MDA and the Director of the 

Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Office, to provide the congressional defense committees with an assessment by March 15, 

2011, of the vulnerability of the United States homeland to cruise 

missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles that could be launched 

from off the coast, and a plan for how such vulnerabilities are 

being addressed. 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National 

Defense University 

The budget request contained $49.3 million in PE 65104D8Z for 

technical studies, support, and analysis, but contained no funds for 

analyses by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

(CTNSP) at the National Defense University. 

The committee recognizes that CTNSP continues to provide valuable support to the Department through the development of a wide 

range of studies which are designed to inform and sharpen national 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
197 

security decision making. The committee continues to be the beneficiary of CTNSP studies and CTNSP experts, and encourages the 

CTNSP to continue to explore issues of importance to the Department and the nation. The committee believes the CTNSP should 

explore research into several key areas, including science and technology to support irregular warfare, test and evaluation infrastructure, improving integration of social science research into defense 

programs, and workforce development for future cyber warriors. The committee recommends $50.3 million, an increase of $1.0 

million, in PE 65104D8Z for the CTNSP. 

Counter-ideology programs 

The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

Quick Reaction Special Projects in the Rapid Reaction Technology 

Office, but included no funds to address the science and technology 

gaps identified in the ‘‘Strategic Communication Science and Technology Plan’’ from April 2009. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has not sufficiently focused its activities to counter violent 

extremist ideologies. While there are many strategic communication and information operations programs that aim to undermine 

the ideological narrative of various violent extremist groups, it is 

not apparent that they are coordinated and supported to the same 

extent that programs to undermine communism were during the 

cold war. As noted elsewhere in this report, there are social science 

programs within the Department that could prove valuable in establishing a concerted program to delegitimize violent extremist 

ideologies. 

The committee encourages the Department to take a holistic 

view of its messaging and counter-messaging activities and develop 

a strategy that links these efforts with other science and technology efforts in order to better understand adversarial ideologies. 

As noted elsewhere in this report, the Department must first understand the ideological environment, including how these groups 

leverage digital media, and then translate that understanding into 

synchronized action that coordinates near-, mid-, and far-term actions across the federal government. Active and continuous monitoring should be institutionalized in order to improve the execution 

of ongoing and future planned efforts. 

The committee recommends $88.2 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, in PE 63826D8Z for initiatives identified in the April 2009 

‘‘Strategic Communication Science and Technology Plan’’ that focus 

DOD activities to counter adversarial ideologies. 

Cognitive computing efforts 

The budget request contained $90.1 million in PE 62304E for 

Cognitive Computing at the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA). Of this amount, $21.0 million was requested for 

the Transformative Apps and Healing Heroes programs. 

The committee is aware that the goal of the Transformative Apps 

program is to put mobile, tactical applications in the hands of 

warfighters and to create a new military apps marketplace with a 

vibrant development community. The committee understands that 

the Army Chief Information Officer (CIO) has established a similar 

development effort called ‘‘Apps for the Army,’’ which includes a 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
198 

cash award competition. The committee believes that because of 

the CIO’s day-to-day experience supporting the warfighting community, the CIO would possess a closer understanding of the 

warfighter’s needs and requirements. The committee is concerned 

that the DARPA effort is not adequately coordinated and de-conflicted with the Army initiative, or that an adequate case has been 

made as to the unique challenge that makes this a hard problem 

requiring DARPA support. 

The committee is also aware that the goal of the Healing Heroes 

effort is to bring the power of social networking, modern information technology, and machine learning to bear on the medical problems of American veterans. Because of the policy and regulatory requirements associated with addressing the medical challenges of 

our warfighters, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191) (HIPAA) and the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–579), the committee is concerned that DARPA does not have adequate policy expertise to 

translate these legal strictures into technical systems. While the 

committee supports the goals of this program, it is not confident 

that DARPA should lead this type of activity, or that it should pursue technical solutions using real patient data without a well-defined memorandum of agreement with a partner that has deeper 

experience with HIPAA and Privacy Act information. Therefore, the committee recommends $69.1 million, a decrease 

of $21.0 million, in PE 62304E for the Transformative Apps and 

Healing Heroes programs. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

The committee remains supportive of the mission of the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in researching and 

developing innovative, leap-ahead capabilities for the Department 

of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes that DARPA has undergone several corporate changes over the last year, including 

changes to its management structure, program priorities, execution 

goals, and business model. The committee commends the new director of DARPA for taking steps to improve the overall efficiency 

of DARPA operations. Most notably, by making key changes to its 

financial execution procedures, DARPA’s obligation rates are up 17 

percent over the average of the previous five years; and are a vast 

improvement over historical averages. 

Despite these improvements, the committee is aware of other potential program execution problems. During its review of DARPA’s 

fiscal year 2011 budget request, the committee noted several programs, in particular the 6.3 programs, lacked clear transition 

paths. The committee remains concerned that without strong transition paths in place, or programmed service or agency transition 

funding, many of these programs will fail to be adopted by a program of record or science and technology activity. Additionally, 

some programs were noted to have late-year starts or were still undergoing performer selections. The committee believes that with 

only two quarters remaining for the obligation of the fiscal year 

2010 funds, DARPA will be unable to effectively obligate the requested funds. 

The committee makes a series of recommendations for general 

reductions in DARPA programs: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
199 

[In millions of dollars] 

61101E—Defense Research Sciences ............................................................. (¥50M) 

62715E—Materials and Biological Technology ............................................. (¥5M) 

62716E—Electronics Technology .................................................................... (¥15M) 

63286E—Advanced Aerospace Systems ......................................................... (¥31M) 

63287E—Space Programs and Technology .................................................... (¥2M) 

63760E—Command, Control, and Communications Systems ...................... (¥2M) 

63765E—Classified DARPA Programs .......................................................... (¥15M) 

63766E—Network-Centric Warfare Technology ........................................... (¥15M) 

63767E—Sensor Technology ........................................................................... (¥5M) 

These recommendations are made without prejudice to the particular account identified. 

Digital media study 

The budget request contained $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

Combating Terrorism Technical Support, but contained no funds 

for efforts to better understand the impact of digital media exploited by extremist groups and individuals. 

The committee recognizes the rapid increase in adversarial use 

of new media products to disseminate their messages and biased 

rhetoric in order to undermine U.S. interests and entice populations to actively and passively support global terrorism. Various 

groups around the globe, such as al-Qa’ida and the Taliban, persistently utilize the Internet to recruit, train, and fundraise. 

Through popular websites, such as video sharing and social networking sites, their misleading and persuasive products often reach 

the stage of public opinion first, ultimately rendering subsequent 

factual counter messages useless. The amount of deceptive misinformation continues to grow at a staggering pace and the majority 

remains unanswered and misunderstood by moderate authorities. 

The Department’s ability to analyze extremist online propaganda 

within the proper cultural and linguistic context is critical to comprehending our adversaries’ ideological campaign, which is a significant driver for insurgencies and prolonged terrorist attacks. The 

committee believes defense policy will be appropriately guided if 

the Department understands the full scope of our enemies’ online 

information campaign. The committee recommends $87.8 million, an increase of $2.5 

million, in PE 63122D8Z for the Combating Terrorism Technical 

Support Office to conduct an extensive study to determine the state 

of the virtual media environment our adversaries occupy. The committee also directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations and Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities to brief the House Committee on Armed Services, by February 1, 2011, on the plan for executing this digital media study. 

Directed energy research programs 

The budget request contained $96.7 million in PE 63901C for directed energy research programs for the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA). 

The budget request supports transitioning the Airborne Laser 

(ABL) aircraft to a national laser test platform for advanced directed energy research. It will also allow the MDA to continue focused directed energy research and development to hedge against 

future threats. 

The committee understands that the Director, Defense Research 

and Engineering (DDR&E) has begun a review of the DepartmentVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
200 

wide portfolio of directed energy research efforts in light of the 

availability of the ABL aircraft to act as the test-bed for directed 

energy research activities beyond missile defense. 

The committee is aware of a number of promising technologies 

being reviewed that may warrant additional resources, and understands that the review of these technologies is scheduled to be completed by DDR&E in June 2010. However, the committee is concerned that the budget request does not include sufficient funding 

to support appropriate testing and retention of the ABL workforce, 

which has developed critical directed energy technology skills. 

The committee supports developmental efforts that appear most 

likely to yield operational capabilities and directs the Director, Defense Research and Engineering to submit a report on the Department’s review of directed energy technologies to the congressional 

defense committees by July 1, 2010. The committee recommends $146.7 million, an increase of $50.0 

million, in PE 63901C to support increased research, development, 

and testing of directed energy technologies, including using ABL as 

a test platform. 

Environmental management information systems 

The committee is aware that the Army has conducted a pilot program to evaluate an internet-based environmental management information system (EMIS). The committee understands that the 

Army has utilized an EMIS to demonstrate how a system can cost 

effectively and efficiently automate environmental compliance and 

greenhouse gas emission tracking and reduction. As a result of this 

pilot, the Army appears to have experienced cost savings, energy 

reductions, increased compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, while at the same time improving mission 

readiness and installation sustainability. The committee strongly 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine the lessons learned 

from this pilot to determine the potential for leveraging this technology to share with other components within the Department of 

Defense and the other military departments. 

Environmental Security Technical Certification Program 

The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 63851D8Z for 

the environmental security technical certification program. 

The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts to 

demonstrate and promote implementation of innovative cost-effective environmental technologies through the environmental security technical certification program. The committee also supports 

the efforts of this program, highlighted in the recent Quadrennial 

Defense Review, to use military installations as a test bed ‘‘to demonstrate and create a market for innovative energy efficiency and 

renewable energy technologies coming out of the private sector and 

DoD and Department of Energy laboratories.’’ The committee recognizes that much more can be done in this area. 

The committee recommends $45.4 million, an increase of $15.0 

million, in PE 63851D8Z, including an increase of $10.0 million to 

accelerate efforts to demonstrate and implement innovative environmental, energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, 

and an increase of $5.0 million for a pilot program on collaborative 

energy security authorized elsewhere within this title. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
201 

Federal Voting Assistance Program 

The budget request contained $64.7 million in PE 65803SE for 

research and development supporting the Defense Human Resources Agency. Of this amount, $39.0 million was requested for 

the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The committee required the Department of Defense conduct an electronic absentee 

voting demonstration project for uniformed services voters in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 

Law 107–107). The committee is aware that the immaturity of system standards makes it impossible for the Department of Defense 

to get the Election Assistance Commission certified system guidelines required by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) in fiscal year 

2011. The committee continues to support the goals of FVAP, but 

the challenges in maturing the needed system standards calls for 

a gradual increase in funding to mitigate developmental risks. Therefore, the committee recommends $39.7 million, a decrease 

of $25.0 million, in PE 65803SE for the FVAP. 

Ground combat uniform research and development 

Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) established, as a policy of the 

United States, that the design and fielding of all future ground 

combat and camouflage utility uniforms of the armed forces may 

uniquely reflect the identity of the individual military services, provided that the ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms, to 

the maximum extent practicable: (1) provide members of every 

military service an equivalent level of performance, functionality, 

and protection commensurate with their respective assigned combat missions; (2) minimize risk to the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine operating in the joint battlespace; and (3) provide 

interoperability with other components of individual war fighter 

systems, including body armor and other individual protective systems. The committee notes that part of the rationale for section 352 

of Public Law 111–84 was to reduce the multiple research, design, 

development, and fielding efforts for military ground combat uniforms being undertaken by the military departments and to improve the overall combat capability of those assigned to ground 

combat missions. 

In an interim response to section 352 of Public Law 111–84, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) found no performance 

standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no requirements 

for the services to test interoperability between their uniforms and 

other protective gear. Furthermore, while GAO found some examples of uniform technology being shared across the services, the 

committee emphasizes the importance of sharing new technologies, 

advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform 

design and development between the military services. The committee notes that some of the military departments have used the 

Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center during development of their ground combat uniforms to test the 

effectiveness of the camouflage, and, in some cases, camouflage effectiveness of ground combat uniforms and protective gear. The 

committee believes, however, that Natick’s resources could be betVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
202 

ter utilized for joint research and development. Because of its expertise, the committee urges the services to consider expanding 

their use of the Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and 

Engineering Center as a center of excellence for uniform research 

and development to guide their development of camouflage effectiveness and performance criteria and testing. 

Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 

to consider designating an executive agent (EA) to oversee Department of Defense activities related to research and development of 

ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms. The committee envisions that such an EA would be similar to the functions performed by the executive agent for operation of the Department of 

Defense Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program. 

Intergovernmental Value Added Network 

The budget request contained $184.1 million in PE 65020BTA for the Business Transformation Agency (BTA), including $3.7 million 

for the Intergovernmental Value Added Network (IVAN). 

The committee is aware that BTA has developed IVAN to address long standing material weaknesses associated with intergovernmental transactions identified by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General. 

IVAN will provide a system for internal control and financial visibility, as well as ensure the timeliness and accuracy of accounting 

transaction postings. These goals are important for ensuring the 

full transparency of Department financial transactions as well as 

providing capabilities necessary to achieve financial audit readiness. The committee supports the objectives of IVAN, but is discouraged that this system has not been transitioned to other military departments or interagency partners. Because there has not 

been wide spread adoption of IVAN to remedy this long-standing 

problem, the committee believes that continued investment is unlikely to result in any benefit for the nation. Therefore, the committee recommends $180.4 million, a decrease 

of $3.7 million, in PE 65020BTA for IVAN. 

Investment review process for human dynamics activities 

The committee recognizes the need for human dynamics programs within the Department of Defense, which, according to the 

Defense Science Board, include ‘‘the actions and interactions of personal, interpersonal, and social/contextual factors and their effects 

on behavioral outcomes.’’ The committee has been supportive of 

human dynamics activities in the past, such as the Human Terrain 

System, the Minerva Initiative, cultural engagement teams and associated programs. 

The committee believes that for the Department to have a robust 

human dynamics effort, it requires senior leadership engagement 

and a governance forum for understanding the range of service and 

combatant commander requirements, existing programs, program 

gaps and required resources needed to create a critical mass of expertise within the government. 

The committee also recognizes that one area in particular that 

would benefit from senior leadership would be data standards and 

data tagging methodologies for socio-cultural information. The committee understands that collecting useful socio-cultural information 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
203 

in a manner that can be ingested and analyzed by automated information processing systems is a key technical challenge to integrating human terrain understanding into the overall battlespace 

operational picture. 

The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense establish a process, including a reviewing and decision-making body, to 

review investments and recommend programming decisions for Department of Defense programs associated with human dynamics. 

This process should also serve as intra- and interdepartmental coordination body for human dynamics research. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on the development of the 

investment review process to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Israeli cooperative programs 

The budget request contained $121.7 million in PE 63913C for Israeli cooperative programs. This represents a decrease of $79.6 

million from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. The fiscal year 

2011 budget request contained $46.7 million for continued development of David’s Sling Weapon System (DSWS), $12.2 million for 

improvements to the Arrow Weapon System (AWS), and $50.8 million for Arrow-3. 

Since 1986, the United States and the State of Israel have cooperated on missile defense. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) has three significant initiatives with Israel to develop and 

improve its indigenous capability to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles: DSWS for defense against shortrange systems; AWS for defense against medium-range systems; 

and the Arrow-3 Interceptor, an upper-tier follow-on to the AWS. 

MDA is also developing, testing, and exercising interoperability between the U.S. ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) and the 

Israeli Missile Defense Architecture to ensure Israeli systems can 

be integrated into the global BMDS. 

However, the budget request does not support acceleration of full 

scale development of the DSWS, completion of the development and 

testing of AWS improvements, and beginning coproduction of the 

Arrow-3 interceptor. The committee is aware that progress has 

been achieved over the past year in meeting the agreed Arrow-3 

knowledge points. 

The committee recommends $209.7 million for Israeli cooperative 

programs, an increase of $88.0 million in PE 63913C, including 

$84.7 million for DSWS, $54.2 million for AWS improvements, and 

$58.8 million for Arrow-3. 

K–12 education in computer sciences and mathematics 

The budget request contained $328.2 million in PE 61101E for 

basic research in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), including funds for the Computer Futures program; 

$48.3 million in PE 65803A for basic research in the Army, including funds for the Army Educational Outreach Program; and $429.8 

million in PE 61153N for basic research in the Navy, including 

funds for educational outreach programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to stimulate careers in computer science and engineering. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
204 

The committee remains concerned about reports such as the National Academy of Science study ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering 

Storm’’ which indicate that the United States may not be producing 

sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers (S&E) to meet our 

future national security needs. The strength of the nation is founded on a knowledge economy. If the nation is unable to meet the demands in S&Es, it will have severe detrimental effects on the defense sector and the broader economic health of the nation. Facing 

a similar challenge 50 years ago, President Eisenhower increased 

investments in science and mathematics education that made significant progress in the years that followed. However, in the past 

several decades the impact of those investments has declined. 

In that same spirit, service and agency investments in K–12 educational outreach programs represent an investment in the nation’s 

intellectual capital that the committee believes will reap significant 

rewards in the future. The Computer Futures program is supporting K–12 educational programs to develop and foster students 

in computer science and mathematics at an early age in order to 

create a pipeline to support the nation’s future scientific and engineering needs in these areas. The Army Educational Outreach Program includes a range of Army-sponsored research, education, competitions, internships and practical experiences designed to engage 

and guide students and teachers in STEM education. The Navy 

also supports a similar variety of STEM opportunities. The committee recommends $329.2 million, an increase of $1.0 

million, in PE 61101E for DARPA’s Computer Futures program to 

create and validate additional curriculum covering new topics, and 

to expand the program into new school systems. The committee 

recommends $49.3 million, an increase of $1.0 million, in PE 

65803A for expansion of the Army Educational Outreach Program 

to create new curricula and to expand the geographic diversity of 

the participating schools. The committee also recommends $430.8 

million, an increase of $1.0 million, in PE 61153N for the expansion of the Navy educational outreach program to provide more 

focus on cyber-related computer science and mathematics students. 

Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology Sharing 

The committee remains committed to ensuring that knowledge 

created through the Department of Defense’s (DOD) research and 

development programs are fully exploited across the DOD science 

and technology enterprise. The committee notes that over the past 

several years, the Army has developed and implemented the 

Knowledge, Innovation, and Technology Sharing (KITS) system. 

The committee understands that the KITS system is an innovation 

and knowledge management tool designed to identify, capture, 

manage, and share information generated by service-funded research and development activities. The KITS system enables researchers, procurement staff, technology transition agents, and patent attorneys to capture vital innovation knowledge generated by 

Army-funded research and development activities and store it in a 

single integrated database. The committee notes that KITS is currently operational at five Army research, development, and engineering organizations. The committee believes that such an integrated system could foster greater collaboration on technology development and transitions issues in support of the Department and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
205 

industry and should be made available across the DOD research 

and development community. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, acting through 

the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, to review the 

Army KITS systems and brief the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services Committee and the House Committee on Armed Services 

Committee, by September 15, 2010, on the utility of the program 

for use across the services and relevant agencies, including the cost 

of adopting the system, as well as any potential savings it may 

offer the defense science and technology enterprise. 

Management of defense basic research 

The committee is encouraged by recent sustained increases for 

basic research within the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes the critical contribution basic research investments make in creating a strong scientific foundation that supports 

the long-term development of future military capabilities. 

The committee notes the concerns regarding the defense basic research program raised by the JASON scientific advisory group and 

the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Department of Defense Basic Research. Considering the increasing investments 

being made in defense basic research, the committee remains concerned about the quality, relevance, and focus of the basic research 

efforts, and the coordination of those efforts within the Department, including the services and the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, and relevant programs within the federal government. 

The committee is encouraged that the Basic Science Office, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, recently proposed a clear, 

actionable strategic defense basic research plan that would address 

many of those concerns. The committee supports the five goals set 

forth to strengthen the defense basic research enterprise, including: 

(1) Provide scientific leadership for the DOD basic research 

enterprise; 

(2) Attract the nation’s best scientists and engineers to contribute to and lead DOD research; 

(3) Ensure the coherence and balance of the DOD basic research portfolio; 

(4) Foster connections between DOD performers and the 

DOD community; 

(5) Maximize the discovery potential of the defense research 

business environment. 

The committee is concerned that the proposed basic research 

strategy is not properly resourced to develop and execute useful 

management tools for ensuring the quality and relevance of defense 

basic research. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary 

of Defense to provide adequate resources to oversee, plan, execute, 

and evaluate its basic research program and investments. Further, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2010, on actions being 

taken to implement the proposed basic research strategy. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
206 

Mechanism to provide funds for defense laboratories 

Section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as amended by 

section 2801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), granted the directors of the Department of Defense laboratories the authority and resources to 

conduct, at their discretion, a program for innovative research and 

development, incentives to hire and retain skilled scientists and engineers, transition of technology to warfighters, and funding of 

minor construction projects. The committee notes that the statute 

requires that all funds available to laboratory directors, up to three 

percent, may be used to support the selected efforts. The committee 

is concerned that the utilization of section 219 of Public Law 110– 

417, due to various reasons, has not been fully implemented across 

the Department of Defense laboratories. The committee reminds 

the Department of Defense that the use of all funds include, directly appropriated funds, funds derived from work for other Department of Defense organizations, other federal agencies, and nonfederal organizations, or from other sources of laboratory revenue, 

excluding congressionally directed appropriations. The intent of 

section 219 of Public Law 110–417 is to provide authorization to access up to three percent of all such funds. 

The committee believes that to improve the performance and 

technical capabilities of the laboratories requires a proper balance 

between central management control and local director discretion. 

However, the Department of Defense’s laboratory corporate structure provides consultation, not direction, to the laboratory directors. Section 219 of Public Law 110–417 is modeled after the successful Department of Energy Laboratory Directed Research and 

Development program, and affords Department of Defense laboratory directors the opportunity to reinvigorate the in-house workforce and programs essential to the development of military capabilities. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 

not moving expeditiously to implement this useful new authority. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries 

of the military departments to provide the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a 

briefing, by September 1, 2010, on the details of the status of implementation of section 219 of Public Law 110–417, as amended by 

section 2801 of Public Law 111–84, including specific bureaucratic, 

regulatory, and statutory barriers to full implementation and the 

organizations involved in those barriers, and a schedule for full implementation of this section as intended. 

Missile Defense Agency special programs 

The budget request contained $270.2 million in PE 63891C for 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) special programs. The committee recommends $245.2 million, a decrease of $25.0 

million, in PE 63891C for MDA special programs. 

Missile defense command, control, and communications 

The committee is concerned that a potential adversary could conduct cyber attacks and/or satellite communications (SATCOM) jamming against elements of the missile defense network. These techVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
207 

nologies are readily available and have proliferated. An attack 

against the missile defense network could have asymmetric effects 

and may imperil the defense of national interests at home and 

abroad. 

The committee directs the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to prepare a 

joint report on actions planned or taken to mitigate the threat 

posed to theater, regional, and global missile defense command, 

control, communications, and computer capabilities by cyber and 

SATCOM jamming threats. The report should identify key nodes 

and vulnerabilities and any actions taken to protect those nodes 

and mitigate the vulnerabilities. The report may be delivered in 

classified form but should include an unclassified summary. 

The committee further directs the Commander and the Director 

to submit this report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Multi-Agency Collaboration Environment 

The committee is aware that the office of the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Networks and Information Integration sponsored a 

program intended to break down interagency information stovepipes and promote greater information sharing among the Department of Defense and its partners. The Multi-Agency Collaboration 

Environment (MACE) is an innovative effort to address many of 

the information sharing problems identified by the 9/11 Commission which continue to plague the U.S. Government. MACE provides a unique proving ground for federated information sharing 

architectures and techniques. Equally important, the contracting 

paradigm for MACE is a radical departure for the Department, and 

offers a potential future standard that leverages Darwinian principles in support of information systems program management. The 

committee plans to closely monitor the progress of MACE, and encourages the Department to make greater use of this capability. 

Over-the-horizon broadcast extension capability 

The budget request contained $162.3 million in PE 64940D8Z for 

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to develop, 

by January 1, 2012, an over-the-horizon broadcast extension capability by the Air Force 46th Test Squadron. The purpose of this capability is to provide Air National Guard elements with a mission 

critical data link that is integrated with test data networks, allowing sharing of tactical data link data by geographically-separated 

ranges. 

The committee recommends $169.1 million in PE 64940D8Z, an 

increase of $6.8 million, for Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development. 

Regional missile defense plans 

The new Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) for missile defense in 

Europe announced by the President on September 17, 2009, is likely to create increased force structure and inventory demands. Furthermore, as noted in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) 

released on February 1, 2010, the Phased Adaptive Approach is to 

be tailored to other geographic regions such as East Asia and the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
208 

Middle East, which is also likely to create significant force structure and inventory demands. As acknowledged in the BMDR, ‘‘regional demand for U.S. BMD assets is likely to exceed supply for 

some years to come.’’ 

Until these regional missile defense architectures are completed, 

the committee is concerned that the Department’s missile defense 

force structure and inventory requirements, and the resulting resource implications will be difficult to quantify. In addition, certain 

missile defense capabilities, such as Aegis ballistic missile defense 

ships, will remain high demand, low density assets that must be 

carefully managed across the combatant commands so that no one 

theater accepts greater risk at the expense of another. 

The committee is aware that the Department is developing regional missile defense architectures based on the PAA and also developing a comprehensive force management process. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report to the 

congressional defense committees by December 1, 2010, describing: 

(1) the regional missile defense architectures, including the force 

structure and inventory requirements derived from the architectures, and (2) the comprehensive force management process, and 

the capability, deployment, and resource outcomes that have been 

determined by this process. 

Role of non-lethal weapons 

The committee reiterates its belief that non-lethal weapons 

(NLW) can and should play an increasingly important role in meeting the evolving requirements of U.S. military strategy. The committee supports a robust science and technology effort leading to 

deployment of non-lethal weapons capabilities, including directed 

energy technologies, which can provide escalation-of-force options 

to the warfighter for situations where the use of lethal force may 

be counterproductive to U.S. goals and objectives. 

The committee appreciates the Department’s ‘‘Report on Requirements for Non-Lethal Weapons’’, submitted in response to a requirement in committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The 

committee notes that the December 2009 Report stated that ‘‘Nonlethal weapons will continue to make useful contributions in a 

range of military operations for the foreseeable future.’’ In the letter of transmittal, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics wrote that the Department ‘‘strongly 

supports the timely development and fielding of NLW for the 

armed forces.’’ The report also identified actions being taken by the 

Department to address the concerns raised in the April 2009 Government Accountability Office report titled, ‘‘DOD Needs to Improve Program Management Policy, and Testing to Enhance Ability 

to Field Operationally Useful Non-Lethal Weapons.’’ 

Despite these positive developments, the committee remains concerned that the Department does not fully appreciate the important 

role non-lethal capabilities can play in helping to ensure mission 

success. For example, the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander, U.S. Central Command, and the 

Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, have reaffirmed the need to 

limit unintended non-combatant casualties in on-going contingency 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
209 

operations; yet they have not explicitly identified the role non-lethal weapons can play in achieving this end. 

The committee believes the importance of non-lethal weapons 

has increased as a result of the shift in United States military 

strategy toward civilian casualty avoidance, particularly in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Moreover, although the goal of civilian casualty avoidance is likely to be an enduring requirement of 

future U.S. military engagements, the importance of non-lethal 

weapons is not explicitly recognized in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. In addition, the research and development budget requests for fiscal year 2011, for both the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons 

Program and the individual service NLW programs are less than 

the appropriated amounts for fiscal year 2010, which are insufficient to close the capability gaps referenced in the Department of 

Defense report to Congress. Procurement funding has declined substantially in recent years and is less than one-fifth of the total fiscal year 2011 Department of Defense non-lethal weapons budget 

request, complicating the ability to field systems more broadly in 

support of current counter-piracy, stability operations, or other unconventional and irregular contingencies. These budgetary trends 

do not reflect an urgent need for non-lethal capabilities, despite the 

Department’s affirmation of their continuing utility. The committee 

is troubled by this apparent disconnect. 

The committee’s oversight of the Department’s non-lethal weapons activities is handicapped by the lack of comprehensive and easily identifiable data on non-lethal weapons budgets and programs. 

These programs are grouped in multiple categories, depending 

upon whether the program is a joint or service initiative, or in the 

research, development, or acquisition phase. Moreover, funding is 

contained in multiple service line items that are not easily identifiable. This complicates the ability to understand the breadth of the 

Department’s non-lethal weapons program in order to avoid program duplication and redundancies. Elsewhere in this report, the 

committee directs the military departments to clearly identify a 

procurement account for NLW line items in their future year budget submissions. The committee expects that each line item description will identify the specific programs for which funds are being 

requested; provide summary justification for the program; identify 

whether the program is a joint or service-specific initiative; and the 

amount of funding provided during the past fiscal year. The committee also expects the Department to provide similar information 

for all budget requests for research, development, test, and evaluation for NLWs. 

The Department’s report also states that, ‘‘Commander, Central 

Command has mandated NLW training as a prerequisite for deploying forces.’’ Consistent with the deployment of force application 

and force protection capabilities, the committee believes that effective operational testing and evaluation, as well as proper training 

on non-lethal weapons are critical to effective fielding. Elsewhere 

in this report, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

begin operationally testing, including training of counter-personnel 

NLWs prior to fielding these devices to deploying service members. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
210 

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce 

The committee believes that one of the enduring strengths of the 

Department of Defense is the technological capability provided by 

a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

workforce. The committee has repeatedly expressed concerns, 

echoed by reports from the National Academy of Science and the 

Defense Science Board, which indicate that the United States is 

not producing sufficient numbers of qualified scientists and engineers to meet our future national security needs. In addition to the 

national security implications, the committee agrees with leading 

economists that the continual decline in the STEM workforce will 

have a significant impact on our economic security, affecting the 

nation’s competitiveness and technological leadership on the world 

stage. 

The committee commends the service secretaries and the Secretary of Defense for placing increased emphasis on developing and 

implementing STEM programs, particularly K–12 programs, but 

remains concerned that there has not been a commensurate increase in planning, coordination or investments across the Department. The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of Defense 

has not complied with a March 31, 2009, deadline for a response 

to a study required in the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The committee directed the Secretary to 

include in the study the findings from an assessment of all STEM 

related programs across the Department and the recommendations 

for the enhancement and coordination of such programs. 

The committee emphasizes that the Department of Defense has 

a mandate to continually analyze, understand, and address critical 

STEM needs in areas, such as: 

(1) Enduring scientific and technical disciplines where the 

Department of Defense may potentially have critical shortages 

in personnel or expertise; 

(2) Emerging scientific and technical areas where the Department should promote growth of the workforce; 

(3) Tools necessary to foster and grow a diverse and culturally competent STEM workforce; and 

(4) Efforts that mutually support broader national goals to 

promote STEM education and increase the international 

competiveness of the United States. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

greater mentoring and outreach with STEM professional societies 

or other organizations to help support STEM education outreach 

programs. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the 

service secretaries to do more to increase diversity and equity in 

the STEM workforce pipeline in order to leverage the untapped potential of a broader range of the population. Not only does this 

have the potential to increase the resource pool to support traditional scientific and engineering pursuits for national defense, but 

it also has the potential to provide valuable benefits for other related organizations, such as the intelligence community, the Foreign Service, and the acquisition corps. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
211 

Special Operations Technology Development 

The budget request contained $26.5 million in PE 1160401BB for 

Special Operations Technology Development (SOTD). 

The committee recognizes that SOTD provides valuable support 

to U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) through the development of laboratory prototypes for applied research and technology projects. The committee also recognizes that SOTD provides 

USSOCOM with an ability to make small incremental investments 

with the Department, other government agencies, and commercial 

organizations in order to influence the direction of emerging technologies and capabilities in support of U.S. Special Operations 

Forces (USSOF). 

The committee notes that the list of unfunded requirements it received for USSOCOM research and development efforts is in excess 

of $41.0 million, indicating significant shortfalls in this critical 

area. The committee understands that these unfunded requirements would provide transformational enhancements for USSOF 

engaged in direct and indirect missions in the Republic of Iraq, the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and other areas. The committee recommends $31.5 million, an increase of $5.0 

million, in PE PE 1160401BB for Special Operations Technology 

Development to support USSOCOM research and development unfunded requirements, including digital night vision devices, non-lethal weapons applications, and classified program areas in direct 

support of USSOF missions. 

Test Resource Management Center budget certification briefing 

The committee recognizes that the Director, Test Resource Management Center is required to review and certify as adequate the 

budgets of each military department, Operational Test and Evaluation, and each Defense Agency with test and evaluation responsibilities as directed by section 231 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) that established 

the Test Resource Management Center. Further, section 251 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) amended section 196(c) of title 10, United States Code 

to grant the Director, Test Resource Management Center the same 

authority to military service department information as provided 

the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to ensure that the 

Director has access to all the information needed to certify service 

budgets and provide recommendations regarding Department of 

Defense test and evaluation infrastructure. The committee seeks to 

ensure that communication between the Test Resource Management Center and the services and agencies is adequate for the performance of the Director’s legislated duties. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Test Resource Management Center to 

brief the committee by December 1, 2010 on the budget certification process for fiscal year 2012. 

Trusted computing in defense systems 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for developing a robust framework for risk management of the global supply 

chain. The report provided to the committee in response to section 

254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) clearly shows that the Department of Defense 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
212 

assessed the threats to the entire spectrum of hardware and software for gathering, storing, transmitting, retrieving, or processing 

information, including counterfeit as well as maliciously manipulated components. 

The committee encourages the Department to build upon this 

work through the establishment of additional pilot projects to test 

out this risk management framework, which may prove useful in 

refining technologies or concepts requiring greater maturation, as 

well as integrating risk management practices more broadly across 

the Department. 

Unmanned systems manning 

The committee recognizes the importance of unmanned systems 

and encourages the Department of Defense to continue investing in 

technology that reduces manning requirements for current system 

operations. The committee believes the Department should pursue 

technologies that allow high levels of automation of routine tasks 

thus allowing mission management by significantly fewer personnel. 

Unmanned system technology development 

The committee recognizes the urgent need to develop new unmanned technologies that are more responsive to battlefield conditions and constantly evolving enemy tactics. The committee encourages the use of joint training exercises, like Trident Spectre, to 

achieve rapid technology development and a higher level of responsiveness within the acquisition process. 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $194.9 million for Operational research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee 

recommends $194.9 million, the requested amount for fiscal year 

2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
213 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here HR491.128
214 

Items of Special Interest 

Joint test and evaluation program 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense supports 

a program within operational test and evaluation that is chartered 

to provide non-materiel solutions to resolve joint warfighting 

issues. The committee recognizes that the Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) program has been successful at providing rapid and affordable solutions to joint problems by crafting solutions that address the full range of doctrinal, organizational, training, logistical, 

personnel and facilities challenges, rather than relying solely on 

developing technology solutions. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to make 

greater use of the expertise in JT&E as part of the larger drive to 

improve capabilities development and requirements generation for 

the Department. Furthermore, the committee believes that the 

JT&E program is a critical enabler for weapon systems acquisition 

reform, especially as it supports analysis of alternatives that explore solutions beyond the development of new technologies. The 

committee also recognizes that if JT&E is leveraged appropriately 

in the acquisition process, it could be used to either obviate the 

need for some technology development, or in other cases provide 

additional refinement of the upfront requirements development. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would establish the amounts authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Report Requirements for Replacement Program of the 

Ohio-Class Ballistic Submarine 

This section would convey the sense of Congress that sea-based 

strategic deterrence provided by Navy ballistic missile submarines 

have been essential to the national security of the United States 

and that the Ohio-class submarines should be replaced with a new 

class of submarine designed to ensure there are no gaps in our current strategic deterrence capability. This section would further express the sense of Congress that prior to requesting over one billion 

dollars in research and development funding to develop a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine in advance of a milestone A decision, the Department of Defense should have made available to 

Congress the guidance issued with regard to the conduct of an 

analysis of alternatives and the results of such an analysis of alternatives. Lastly, this section would restrict the obligation of more 

than 50 percent of authorized funds for this development program 

until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to the congressional 

defense committees outlining the guidance associated with, and results of an analysis of alternative capabilities, the cost and schedVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
215 

ule projections for each alternative capability, and the time needed 

to develop and deploy each alternative capability, along with the 

reasoning associated with the decision to replace the current seabased strategic deterrent force with a new class of ships designed 

to carry the current weapons system. 

Section 212—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for F–35 Lightning 

II Aircraft Program 

This section would limit the obligation of amounts authorized to 

be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2011 for 

research, development, test and evaluation for the F–35 Lightning 

II program to 75 percent until 15 days after the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies in 

writing to the congressional defense committees that all funds 

made available for the continued development and procurement of 

a competitive propulsion system for the F–35 Lightning II have 

been obligated. 

Section 213—Inclusion in Annual Budget Request and FutureYears Defense Program of Sufficient Amounts for Continued Development and Procurement of Competitive Propulsion System 

for F–35 Lightning II Aircraft 

This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United States 

Code, by adding a new section 236 that would require that the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each annual budget and each 

Future Years Defense Program for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal 

year thereafter, submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 

title 31, United States Code, include amounts necessary for the 

continued development and procurement of a competitive propulsion system for the F–35 Lightning II. This section would also require that the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that of the funds 

authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 or any year 

thereafter for research, development, test, and evaluation and procurement be obligated and expended in sufficient annual amounts 

for the continued development and procurement of two options for 

the F–35 Lightning II propulsion system in order to ensure the development and competitive production of the F–35 Lightning II propulsion system. Additionally, this section would amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181) by striking section 213. 

Section 214—Separate Program Elements Required for Research 

and Development of Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 

This section would establish separate and distinct program elements in Army, research, development, test and evaluation, and in 

Navy, research, development, test, and evaluation accounts for the 

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, beginning in fiscal 

year 2012. 

The committee supports the JLTV program. The committee recognizes the JLTV program is a required and ambitious attempt to 

replace high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles across the 

Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Special Operations Forces. The 

committee is aware the current JLTV acquisition strategy implements an incremental approach to development and the program is 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
216 

approximately 18 months into a 36 month development effort. The 

committee notes initial competitive prototype testing will begin in 

fiscal year 2010. The committee supports this incremental and 

competitive prototype approach and believes the JLTV program is 

too important to fall victim to cost growth and unnecessary schedule delays that have plagued other Department of Defense major 

defense acquisition programs that entered into the Engineer Manufacturing and Development phases prematurely. 

The committee notes JLTV investment to date is approximately 

$298.5 million but projected investment in JLTV for fiscal years 

2011–15 will be at least $9.7 billion. Therefore, the committee believes a program of this capacity and scope requires extensive oversight, and the establishment of a separate and distinct program 

element would provide the congressional defense committees with 

increased transparency into the program, as well as allow for more 

effective oversight. 

SUBTITLE C—MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Section 221—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Missile 

Defenses in Europe 

This section would limit the availability of funds for construction 

and deployment of either medium-range or long-range missile defense systems in Europe until: (1) any nation hosting such a system 

has signed and ratified a missile defense basing agreement and 

status of forces agreement authorizing deployment; and (2) 45 days 

have elapsed following the receipt by the congressional defense 

committees of the report on the independent assessment of alternative missile defense systems in Europe required by section 235 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84). 

This section would also repeal and restate a modified version of 

section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to add a limitation on mediumrange missile defense interceptors, such as the ‘‘Aegis Ashore’’ concept proposed by the Administration as part of the ‘‘Phased Adaptive Approach’’ announced on September 17, 2009, to the limitation 

imposed by existing law on acquisition (other than for initial longlead procurement) or deployment of operational interceptors of a 

long-range missile defense system in Europe. The limitation would 

be removed when the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as part of such a missile defense system 

has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight 

testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective 

manner and that such missile defense system has the ability to accomplish the mission. 

Section 222—Repeal of Prohibition of Certain Contracts by Missile 

Defense Agency With Foreign Entities 

This section would repeal the ban on use of Department of Defense funds to contract with a foreign government or foreign firm 

on research, development, test, or evaluation related to missile deVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
217 

fense, as required by section 222 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100–180). 

Repealing this section would eliminate unnecessary impediments 

to allow the Missile Defense Agency to collaborate more closely 

with our friends and allies to defend against global missile threats 

as called for in the Administration’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review. 

Section 223—Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense in 

Europe 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees on the phased, 

adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe. The section would 

also require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees assessing the 

report of the Secretary. Finally, the section would prevent obligation of more than 95 percent of funds available for Defense-Wide 

Operations and Maintenance for the Office of the Secretary of Defense until the date on which the report required of the Secretary 

is submitted to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 224—Homeland Defense Hedging Policy 

This section contains five findings concerning missile defense 

threats from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Administration’s 

phased, adaptive approach to missile defense, and hedges against 

unforeseen circumstances. 

Further, this section would make it the policy of the United 

States government to: 

(1) Field missile defense systems in Europe that provide protection against medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile threats consistent with NATO policy and the phased, 

adapted approach, and have been confirmed to perform the assigned mission after successful, operationally-realistic testing; 

(2) Field missile defenses to protect the territory of the 

United States pursuant to the National Missile Defense Act of 

1999 (Public Law 106–38) and to test those systems in an operationally realistic manner; 

(3) Ensure that the Standard Missile–3 Block IIA interceptor 

planned for Phase 3 of the phased, adaptive approach for missile defense is capable of addressing intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East, and that the 

Standard Missile–3 Block IIB interceptor planned for Phase 4 

of such approach is capable of addressing intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East; and 

(4) Continue the development and testing of the two-stage 

ground-based interceptor to maintain it (1) as a means of protection in the event that: the intermediate-range ballistic missile threat to North American Treaty Organization allies in 

Europe materializes before the availability of the Standard 

Missile–3 Block IIA interceptor; the intercontinental ballistic 

missile threat to the United States that cannot be countered 

with the existing ground-based missile defense system materializes before the availability of the Standard Missile–3 Block 

IIB interceptor; or technical challenges or schedule delays afVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
218 

fect the Standard Missile–3 Block IIA interceptor or the Standard Missile–3 Block IIB interceptor; and (2) as a complement 

to the missile defense capabilities deployed in Alaska and California for the defense of the United States. 

Section 225—Independent Assessment of the Plan for Defense of 

the Homeland Against the Threat of Ballistic Missiles 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to contract 

with an independent entity to conduct an assessment of Department of Defense plans for defending the territory of the United 

States against the threat of attack by ballistic missiles, including 

electromagnetic pulse attacks, as such plans are described in the 

Ballistic Missile Defense Review submitted to Congress on February 1, 2010, and the report submitted to Congress under Section 

232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84). 

Section 226—Study on Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities of the 

United States 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conduct a 

joint capabilities mix study on the ballistic missile defense capabilities of the United States and submit a report on the results to the 

congressional defense committee on or about the time of the budget 

submission for fiscal year 2012. 

Section 227—Reports on Standard Missile System 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the congressional defense committees a report on the standard missile system, particularly with respect to Standard Missile–3 Block 

IIA and Standard Missile-3 Block IIB, no later than 90 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, and each 180-day period 

thereafter. 

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 231—Report on Analysis of Alternatives and Program 

Requirements for the Ground Combat Vehicle Program 

This section would limit the Secretary of the Army from obligating more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2011 research and development funding for the Army Ground Combat Vehicle program 

until certain program documentation is provided to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 232—Cost Benefit Analysis of Future Tank-Fired 

Munitions 

This section would require the Secretary of the Army, by March 

15, 2011, to submit a cost benefit analysis of future options for developing tank-fired munitions. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
219 

Section 233—Annual Comptroller General Report on the VH–(XX) 

Presidential Helicopter Acquisition Program 

This section would require the Comptroller General to conduct 

an annual review of the VH–(XX) Presidential Helicopter acquisition program, during the period from 2011 to 2018, and provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees by March 1 of every 

year during the reporting period. 

Section 234—Joint Assessment of the Joint Effects Targeting 

System 

This section requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to form a joint assessment team to 

review the joint effects targeting system and report back to the 

congressional defense committees on the team’s findings. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 241—Escalation of Force Capabilities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting 

through the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and in 

consultation with the Executive Agent for Non-Lethal Weapons, to 

carry out a program to operationally test and evaluate counter-personnel non-lethal weapons and report to the congressional defense 

committees on matters affecting the fielding of such capabilities. 

This section would direct the Secretary to provide a dedicated 

procurement line item in future defense budget submissions for 

non-lethal weapons. 

Section 242—Pilot Program to Include Technology Protection 

Features During Research and Development of Defense Systems 

This section would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a pilot program in order to develop technology protection 

features during the research and development phases for any DOD 

system. Features that might be included in this pilot would include 

technology and engineering design activity, such as capability differentials, anti-tamper, system assurance and software assurance. 

Section 243—Pilot Program on Collaborative Energy Security 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to carry out a collaborative energy security pilot program involving one or more partnerships between one military installation and one Department of Energy laboratory for the purpose of evaluating and validating secure 

microgrid components and systems for deployment. 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $283.1 billion in operation and 

maintenance (O&M) funds to ensure that the Department of Defense can train, deploy, and sustain U.S. military forces. The fiscal 

year 2011 O&M request includes $167.9 billion in the base budget 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
220 

and $115.2 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

Some 37 percent of the total request is for OCO. The fiscal year 

2011 request represents a $17.8 billion increase above the fiscal 

year 2010 request, including an increase of $11.5 billion in the base 

budget request. 

The committee commends the Department for applying additional resources to the readiness accounts in fiscal year 2011 but 

notes that overall readiness remains tenuous. Repeated deployments, with limited dwell time, have reduced the ability of the 

forces to train across the full spectrum of conflict, increasing risk 

to national security if the military had to respond quickly to emergent contingencies. Because units are focused on deployment to the 

Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ahead of 

all other missions, skills not required for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan have atrophied. It will take time to restore these skills 

once sufficient dwell time at home station is available. 

The readiness levels of most non-deployed Army units remain 

low, due to a combination of equipment and personnel shortfalls 

and a lack of time to train. Like the Army, the Navy’s next-to-deploy forces are reporting high levels of readiness, but this also 

comes at the expense of the non-deployed forces that experience 

fewer training opportunities as resources are prioritized toward 

meeting Global Force Management demands. Navy requirements to 

support non-standard missions and requests for individual 

augmentees continue to grow, reducing opportunities for Navy sailors and officers to train for core missions with a full complement 

of personnel. 

The Marine Corps is experiencing equipment usage rates as 

much as seven times greater than peacetime rates, reducing the expected lifespan of gear. The pace and nature of ongoing operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan have adversely affected Marine Corps 

readiness, as evidenced in the Marine Corps’ overall readiness assessment, the reported readiness of next-to-deploy and non-deployed Marine units, and in the service’s assessed ability to perform key warfighting functions. Non-deployed units are being used 

to satisfy equipment needs for deployed and next-to-deploy units. 

The Air Force’s overall readiness has remained at a relatively 

high level compared to the other services because it adopted a rotational model for deployment several years ago. However, Air Force 

readiness levels have declined significantly since 1995. While the 

Air Force maintained the highest readiness of all the services between 2004 and 2008, its readiness has declined since October 

2008. Operational tempo, support of emergent mission sets, and an 

aging aircraft fleet remain the Air Force’s top readiness concerns. 

The budget request continues efforts begun in fiscal year 2010 to 

address readiness shortfalls by increasing training funding for all 

the active-duty forces. The fiscal year 2011 budget request contained funds to continue reset of equipment damaged or worn out 

through nine years of continuous combat operations. The committee notes, however, that the amount of the Army’s depot maintenance budget request contained in the base budget remains 

alarmingly low (at 11.4 percent). The committee has the same concern for Marine Corps depot maintenance, where 86 percent of the 

total fiscal year 2011 budget request is contained in the OCO request. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
221 

With the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Navy attempts a 

course correction to restore flying-hour funding in order to more 

correctly fund operational requirements and meet training goals for 

the Navy and Marine Corps. The committee notes, however, that 

the budget request contained a decrease in funding for Fleet Replacement Squadrons to 84 percent of the requirement against a 

goal of 94 percent, which Navy officials said represented ‘‘the best 

balance of resources to requirements.’’ While the Air Force budget 

request represents a 7.3 percent increase over last year’s request, 

a large portion of the increase can be attributed to inflation and 

cost growth, particularly driven by fuel prices. 

To reduce budgetary risk to readiness in areas where the services have identified unfunded requirements, the committee recommends funding above the levels contained in the budget request. 

These areas include: Navy ship and aviation depot maintenance, 

naval aviation flight training, Air Force weapon system 

sustainment and support equipment, Army base operating services, 

Army Reserve depot maintenance, and contract and performance 

management and training. 

As operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to draw 

down over the next two fiscal years, the committee anticipates a realignment of funding from the Department’s OCO request to the 

services’ O&M base budgets. The committee understands that 

equipment reset and drawdown requirements will remain relatively 

high and steady for a number of succeeding years but expects the 

Department to migrate these baseline operations and sustainment 

costs to the O&M base budget in order to better represent the normalized budget requirements for the required force structure. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
222 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 here HR491.129
223 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 here HR491.130
224 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 here HR491.131
225 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 here HR491.132
226 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 here HR491.133
227 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 here HR491.134
228 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 here HR491.135
229 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 here HR491.136
230 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 here HR491.137
231 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 here HR491.138
232 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 here HR491.139
233 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 here HR491.140
234 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 here HR491.141
235 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 here HR491.142
236 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 here HR491.143
237 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 here HR491.144
238 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 here HR491.145
239 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 here HR491.146
240 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 here HR491.147
241 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 here HR491.148
242 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 here HR491.149
243 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 here HR491.150
244 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 here HR491.151
245 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 here HR491.152
246 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 here HR491.153
247 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2011 amended budget request: 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Adjustments: 

BA 1 Army Vehicle Repair Parts Shortfall ............................................ +45.3 

BA 1 UAS Branch Concept Development ............................................... +3.2 

BA 1 Army Capabilities Integration Center .......................................... (5.0) 

BA 1 Fort Bliss Data Center ................................................................... +2.5 

BA 1 Base Operations Support Program Increase ................................ +500.0 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +256.0 

BA 3 Diversity Outreach for Recruiting & Retention at West Point +1.5 

BA 4 Army G–2 Biometrics ..................................................................... (20.0) 

BA 4 GNEC Reprogramming Offset ....................................................... (26.0) 

BA 4 Social Work Center for Soldiers & Military Families .................. +1.0 

BA 4 The National Organization on Disability Pilot Program for 

Wounded Warriors ................................................................................ +4.8 

Undistributed—Fuel Reduction ............................................................... (28.0) 

Undistributed—Unobligated Balances Estimate ................................... (475.0) 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Adjustments: 

BA 1 Fleet Air Training Program Increase ............................................ +111.0 

BA 1 Navy Engineering Technical Service/Contractor Engineering 

Technical Service .................................................................................. +6.6 

BA 1 Aircraft Depot Maintenance Program Increase ............................ +74.0 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +137.0 

BA 1 NECC Integrated Logistics Overhaul & Equipment Reset ......... +38.9 

BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance Program Increase ................................. +34.0 

BA 2 Navy Ship Disposal Program ......................................................... +4.0 

BA 3 Naval Sea Cadet Corps .................................................................. +0.6 

Undistributed—Fuel Reduction ............................................................... (49.0) 

Undistributed—Unobligated Balances Estimate ................................... (515.0) 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Adjustments: 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +66.0 

Undistributed—Fuel Reduction ............................................................... (4.0) 

Undistributed—Unobligated Balances Estimate ................................... (84.0) 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Adjustments: 

BA 1 Support Equipment ........................................................................ +22.0 

BA 1 Battlefield Airmen Equipment ...................................................... +19.3 

BA 1 Distributed Ground Common Station Integrated Collective 

Command & Control Processing, Exploitation, & Dissemination 

System ................................................................................................... +55.0 

BA 1 Joint Terminal Attack Controller Modeling & Simulation .......... +1.6 

BA 1 Barry M. Goldwater Range Sensor Training Area ....................... +3.5 

BA 1 Air Force Amended Budget Submission ....................................... (16.7) 

BA 1 Weapons System Sustainment ...................................................... +150.0 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +154.0 

BA 2 BEAR Expeditionary Airfield Resources ....................................... +52.8 

BA 3 Diversity Outreach for Recruiting & Retention at the Air Force 

Academy ................................................................................................ +2.1 

Undistributed—Fuel Reduction ............................................................... (90.0) 

Undistributed—Unobligated Balances Estimate ................................... (513.5) 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide Adjustments: 

BA 4 I-CAN! E-File Program ................................................................... +0.2 

BA 4 DCAA General Counsel .................................................................. +1.0 

BA 4 Procurement Technical Assistance Program ................................ +5.2 

BA 4 Defense Impact Aid ........................................................................ +65.0 

BA 4 Department of Defense Education Activity Increase in 

Sustainment to 100% ............................................................................ +4.0 

BA 4 Corrosion Prevention & Mitigation ............................................... +3.6 

BA 4 Critical Language Training, San Diego State University ........... +3.5 

BA 4 Fort Hood Follow-on Review Implementation Fund .................... +100.0 

BA 4 Industrial Base Fund ..................................................................... +30.0 

BA 4 Office of Performance Assessment & Root Cause Analysis ......... +4.0 

BA 4 Readiness & Environmental Protection Initiative ....................... +10.0 

BA 4 ROTC & Reserve Component Strategic Language Hub Pilot ..... +1.2 

Undistributed—Fuel Reduction ............................................................... (4.0) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
248 

Undistributed—Unobligated Balances Estimate ................................... (612.0) 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Adjustments: 

BA 1 Depot Maintenance Program Increase .......................................... +38.0 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +25.0 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve Adjustments: 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +6.0 

BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance Program Increase ................................. +1.0 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve Adjustments: 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100%. ................................................. +2.0 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve Adjustments: 

BA 1 Primary Combat Forces Air Force Amended Budget Submission ......................................................................................................... +1.0 

BA 1 Depot Maintenance Air Force Amended Budget Submission ..... +2.8 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +7.0 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard Adjustments: 

BA 1 Mobile C3 & Asset Tracking Equipment ...................................... +1.8 

BA 1 100 Meter Indoor Small Arms Range ........................................... +1.9 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +48.0 

BA 1 North Carolina Army National Guard Family Assistance Centers ......................................................................................................... +1.6 

BA 1 Our Military Kids ........................................................................... +1.0 

BA 1 Washington National Guard Employment Enhancement 

Project .................................................................................................... +1.5 

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard Adjustments: 

BA 1 Increase in Sustainment to 100% .................................................. +25.0 

BA 1 Aircraft Operations Air Force Amended Budget Submission ..... +6.1 

BA 1 F–16CM & AH–64D Digital Communications Bridge ................. +1.1 

BA 1 Depot Maintenance Air Force Amended Budget Submission ..... +6.8 

Miscellaneous Appropriations Adjustments: 

Acquisition Workforce Training & Recertification ................................. +12.0 

Environmental Restoration at Culebra Island, Puerto Rico ................. +5.0 

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites .................. +15.0 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund Program Reduction (5.0) 

Base Operations Support 

The budget request contained $7.6 billion for Army Base Operations Support 

The committee believes that the implementation of the budget 

request for Base Operations Support could cause a deleterious impact on Army garrison operations and negatively affect the Army 

Family Covenant. The Army addressed a similar issue in a reprogramming request during the execution of the Department of 

Defense Appropriations Act 2010 (Public Law 111–118). 

The committee recommends $8.1 billion, an increase of $500.0 

million for Army Base Operations Support. 

C–130 Force Structure Adjustments 

The budget request included funds to move C–130 aircraft from 

the Air Force reserve components to the active-duty Air Force. The 

committee understands that after the fiscal year 2011 budget request was submitted to Congress, the Air Force decided to reverse 

that plan and now intends to keep the C–130s in the reserve components. In addition, the budget request called for the retirement 

of six C–130s from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (ANG). The 

committee understands that under the Air Force’s revised force 

structure plan, the six C–130s in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

will not be retired in fiscal year 2011 and that adequate funds exist 

in the ANG program to operate these aircraft into fiscal year 2012. 

Based on the Air Force’s decision, the committee recommends 

changes to the original budget request that retain the C–130 aircraft in the reserve components. The adjustments include the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
249 

transfer of funds from active-duty and reserve components for aircraft operations and depot maintenance funding to accommodate 

the air reserve components’ retention of 12 C–130H aircraft for the 

Formal Training Unit at Little Rock Air Force Base. 

Corrosion Control and Prevention 

The budget request contained $7.2 million for prevention and 

mitigation of corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure 

through projects directed by the Office of Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Despite the validated 50-to-1 return on investment from the 

more than 160 projects implemented through the corrosion office, 

the budget request, even with an additional $4.8 million funded in 

other accounts, falls far short of the known requirement of $47.0 

million as reported by the Government Accountability Office in its 

annual review of the corrosion prevention and control budget submission. The committee is disappointed that, in the face of demonstrated successes by the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, 

the Department has not adequately resourced this requirement. 

The committee is aware that the Air Force’s F–22 Raptor fleet 

was grounded in February 2010 for corrosion on ejection seat rods; 

a situation the committee understands was a known problem due 

to poorly designed drainage in the cockpit. In light of this problem, 

the committee awaits the congressionally directed report of the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight assessing the corrosion 

control and mitigation lessons learned from the F–22 Raptor program as applied to the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The 

committee believes that corrosion control and prevention should be 

a part of the lifecycle management and support strategy required 

for major weapon systems under section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

The committee includes a provision elsewhere in this title that 

would add reporting requirements to the annual report submitted 

to Congress by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics. 

The committee recommends $10.8 million, an increase of $3.6 

million, for the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. 

Defense Contract Audit Agency General Counsel 

The budget request contained $486.1 million for the Defense 

Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) but contained no funds for an Office of General Counsel for DCAA. The committeenotes that the 

Government Accountability Office recommended the creation of an 

independent Office of General Counsel for DCAA in testimony before the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform and that legislation 

establishing such an office, the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010), has passed 

the House of Representatives. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for an Office of General Counsel within DCAA. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
250 

Environmental Restoration at Formerly Used Defense Sites 

The budget request contained $276.5 million for environmental 

restoration at formerly used defense sites. 

The committee is aware that 4,705 sites were listed in the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) environmental restoration inventory in fiscal year 2008, including sites eligible for the installation 

restoration program, the military munitions response program, and 

the building demolition and debris removal program. The committee is aware that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated 

the cost to complete all FUDS cleanup efforts at $16.2 billion in fiscal year 2008, reflecting decades of additional work at the current 

rate of expenditure. 

The committee recommends $296.5 million, an increase of $20.0 

million for environmental restoration, formerly used defense sites, 

including $15.0 million for environmental restoration, formerly 

used defense sites, and $5.0 million for environmental restoration 

at Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. 

Execution of Readiness Funding 

The committee is concerned about the ability of the military services and Department of Defense (DOD) agencies to execute their 

operation and maintenance (O&M) budgets completely each year. 

The committee bases its concern upon the budget review analysis 

on unobligated and unexpended balances provided annually to the 

committee by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The 

analysis provided for the review of the fiscal year 2011 budget request included execution data for fiscal year 1999 through fiscal 

year 2009, therefore covering both peacetime and wartime execution trends. The highest levels of unobligated balances range from 

87.0 to 25.7 percent in some accounts. From fiscal years 2000 to 

2004, the average level of unexpended balances in the services’ 

O&M accounts ranged from a high of 4.14 percent to a low of 1.32 

percent. 

The committee is concerned with under-execution in O&M accounts that appears to have a direct relationship to current 

warfighting requirements. Among these are combat support forces, 

combat/weapons systems, aircraft depot operations support, and operating forces. While the committee understands that obligation 

rates are dependent upon the timely receipt of funding, particularly 

supplemental appropriations, GAO’s analysis accounts for congressional adjustments. 

As evidence of its concern about the Department’s ability to properly identify its budget requirements, the committee has included 

in this title a provision that would inventory and evaluate the modeling and simulation tools used by the Department to develop and 

analyze the annual budget submission and to support decisionmaking inside the budget process. 

The committee recommends undistributed reductions of between 

2 and 1 percent of the services’ and the DOD-wide fiscal year 2011 

O&M base budgets for unobligated balance estimates, based on 

GAO’s analysis. In implementing the reductions, the committee encourages the services and the Department of Defense to focus on 

those areas that appear, from GAO’s analysis, to be the most problematic. Furthermore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
251 

Defense, Comptroller to examine the Department’s budget process 

and execution rates, identify causes for chronic and historical 

under-execution, and issue guidance that would enable all components and agencies of the Department of Defense to fully execute 

their O&M budget allocations annually. The committee directs the 

Comptroller to report the findings of this examination to the congressional defense committees with the budget documents submitted for the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

Industrial Base Fund 

The budget request contained no funds for an Industrial Base 

Fund. The committee notes that legislation which has passed the 

House of Representatives, the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010), creates an Industrial Base Fund to support the monitoring, assessment, and enhancement of the industrial base. 

The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for the 

Industrial Base Fund. 

Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis 

The budget request contained $231.8 million for the activities of 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics including $13.3 million for the Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis (PARCA). The committee notes that legislation which has passed the House of Representatives, the Implementing Management for Performance and 

Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 

(IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010), would substantially expand 

the mission of PARCA leading to a need for additional resources to 

carry out PARCA’s mission. 

The committee recommends $17.3 million, an increase of $4.0 

million for PARCA. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request contained $39.8 million for the Readiness 

and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). 

The committee expects the secretaries of the military departments to use the authority and funding available through REPI to 

partner with public and private entities to establish protective buffer zones around military installations that have impending encroachment pressures. The committee recognizes the benefits of 

REPI, including its ability to enhance military readiness, increase 

protection of key military spaces and natural habitats, foster public 

safety standards, and encourage economic growth. The committee recommends $49.8 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative. 

Training and Recertification of the Acquisition Workforce 

The budget request contained $217.6 million for the Department 

of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. The committee notes that legislation establishing new requirements for 

training and recertification of the acquisition workforce, the ImpleVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
252 

menting Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition 

Act of 2010), has passed the House of Representatives. The Department’s compliance with these requirements will require additional 

resources for training throughout the Department’s acquisition 

workforce. 

The committee recommends $229.6 million, an increase of $12.0 

million, to allow the Department to fund this additional training. 

ENERGY ISSUES

Department of Defense Alternative Fuel Use 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

enhance energy security by reducing demand, increasing efficiency, 

and diversifying supply by adopting alternative energy technologies. The committee is aware that certifying alternative fuels 

for use is among the Department’s energy security initiatives, and 

that the military services are pursuing different fuel alternatives. 

For example, the Department of the Air Force is working to complete certification of a Fischer-Tropsch fuel blend in fiscal year 

2011 and a hydro-processed renewable jet fuel in fiscal year 2012. 

In addition, the Department of the Navy is evaluating use of 

biofuels for aviation and maritime purposes and intends to deploy 

a ‘‘Green Strike Group’’ using these biofuels by 2016. 

The committee recognizes that, through its efforts, the Department of Defense has the opportunity to enhance energy security 

and reduce its reliance on petroleum-based fuels. The committee 

encourages the Department to continue its efforts to increase energy independence. The committee directs the Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs, within one year after the date 

of enactment of this Act, to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services on whether existing contracting authorities for alternative 

fuels are adequate to meet the Department of Defense’s needs. 

National Security Impacts of Petroleum Refining 

The committee remains concerned about the vulnerability of the 

Department of Defense to shortages in petroleum availability. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, to provide a briefing to the committee on the significance 

of a robust domestic petroleum refining industry to the national security of the United States by October 31, 2010. In particular, the 

brief should examine the degree to which there is a connection between the domestic refining sector and U.S. military readiness, and 

identify any national security concerns that may be associated with 

reductions in domestic refining capacity. 

WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Army Cooperative Arrangements 

The Department of Defense, in its submission of legislative proposals to Congress, proposed amending section 4544 of title 10, 

United States Code, to: remove the limitation of eight public-priVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
253 

vate partnerships; remove the sunset provision now scheduled for 

September 30, 2014; and allow multi-year contracting for greater 

than five years. The committee has not included this proposed provision in this Act because the committee has not yet received the 

analysis required by section 328 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). This analysis 

is essential to the committee making an informed decision regarding the Department’s legislative proposal concerning the cooperative arrangements addressed in section 4544 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Contractor Support to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization 

The committee acknowledges the gradual expansion of the Joint 

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) but 

notes that such growth appears to include activities that may be 

beyond the scope originally intended, and ultimately approved, for 

the organization to defeat improvised explosive devices and associated networks. While the committee generally supports using contractor expertise in non-operational support and other service support type roles, the committee is concerned that the utilization of 

contractor personnel to fulfill and perform traditional military functions that may be inherently governmental is fraught with risks. 

Specifically, the committee is concerned that JIEDDO may be establishing a cadre of contractor personnel to provide direct support 

to military operations as an offset to fill uniformed personnel vacancies at the combatant commands. The committee notes that this 

concept was not included in the original charter governing JIEDDO 

and may be facilitating the expansion of JIEDDO beyond its core 

mission. The committee believes that normal personnel procedures 

pursuant to the joint manning document process are in place to 

provide such capacity and support from military and federal civilian personnel. 

In response to the above stated concerns and pursuant to the 

stated goals, aspirations, and limitations for JIEDDO, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, by January 31, 2011, to 

provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services on JIEDDO’s use of contractors. The briefing should identify all areas of support provided 

by contractors and contractor employees, including support of core 

missions and operations and support to combatant commands. The 

briefing also should include an assessment of whether JIEDDO 

missions being performed by the contractor workforce are appropriate, including an analysis of contractor support requirements 

compared to performance of inherently governmental tasks, and a 

detailed assessment of the projected contractor workforce needs 

across the Future Years Defense Plan. 

Submarine Maintenance Workload 

The committee appreciates the efforts by the Department of the 

Navy to stabilize workloads at the nation’s public shipyards. However, the committee notes this is occurring at the same time that 

elements of the shipbuilding industrial base are facing workforce 

reductions. This is especially the case in the submarine industrial 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
254 

base, where maintenance and repair work that has helped sustain 

the industrial base between construction workload peaks has declined. 

While the committee shares the Navy’s commitment to long-term 

stability at the public shipyards, the committee remains concerned 

about the near-term impact on the submarine industrial base, 

which continues to experience cyclical workload demands at the 

same time it needs to prepare for increased Virginia-class production. Specifically, while the recent initiative to extend operating intervals for Los Angeles-class (SSN–688) submarines has had the 

positive effect of increasing operational availability for the fleet and 

decreasing maintenance and lifecycle costs, this initiative has 

translated into decreased maintenance opportunities for private 

shipyards. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services, by September 30, 2010, on the Navy’s plan to mitigate gaps in the private-sector submarine industrial base workload, 

including a plan to retain a critically skilled workforce. 

Use of Temporary Shipyard Workforce for Nuclear Maintenance 

According to the final environmental impact statement for the 

proposed homeporting of additional surface ships at Naval Station 

Mayport, Florida, homeporting of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier 

(CVN) would result in ‘‘temporary surges of maintenance employees associated with the three-year depot-level maintenance cycle for 

the CVN.’’ The committee is concerned about the impact the addition of depot-level workload at Mayport would have on the sustainability, efficiency, capabilities, and stability of the fly-away teams 

from the nuclear propulsion depot maintenance workforce used 

under the Navy’s ‘‘One Nuclear Shipyard’’ concept. The committee 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide an 

assessment to the congressional defense committees by February 

15, 2011, of the readiness and cost impacts of CVN homeporting 

and maintenance at Naval Station Mayport on the U.S. nuclear 

power-plant depot maintenance workforce. 

READINESS ISSUES

Air Force’s Ability To Train on Core Mission Competencies 

In order to meet the demands of ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Department of Defense has relied heavily upon combat and support capabilities within the Air Force. Given the nature of these operations, 

some units have been tasked to perform missions other than their 

primary core missions. For example, F–16 aircraft pilots have frequently been flying close air support missions rather than the aircraft’s primary air-to-ground strike missions. As a result, the Air 

Force has made adjustments as necessary to shift the focus of 

training to the types of missions expected to be needed to support 

current operations. Continuous demand and high operational 

tempo have left units with little time to train on primary mission 

tasks. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
255 

The committee is concerned about the potential implications of 

this shift in focus on the Air Force’s ability to train for a broader 

spectrum of missions and the potential degradation of core mission 

capabilities. Aware of the Government Accountability Office’s prior 

work on Air Force readiness issues, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review the Air Force’s 

ability to train on core mission capabilities and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services on the results of its review. This review should: 

(1) Identify the types of missions the Air Force is performing 

to support ongoing operations and assess the nature and extent 

of training for these missions; 

(2) Determine the extent to which units’ current training differs from their traditional core mission training and the extent 

to which affected personnel are able to maintain qualifications 

or currency in their career fields/specialties; 

(3) Identify the nature and extent of Air Force readiness reporting on core mission capabilities; and 

(4) Review the Air Force’s plans to address any gaps in training or degradation in Air Force core capabilities. 

Analysis of the Use of Commercial F–5 Aggressor Aircraft for Air 

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Pilot Training 

The committee is aware that the military departments have used 

different platforms for adversarial air-to-air pilot training missions 

that closely mirror enemy threat aircraft. Since the mid–1970s, the 

Navy has been using F–5 aggressor aircraft, which are flown by a 

mix of reserve and active-duty aviators. To determine whether the 

capability of the military services to conduct air-to-air pilot training 

could be enhanced by using adversary aircraft support provided by 

commercial firms, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to conduct an analysis of the feasibility and advisability of using 

F–5 aircraft provided by commercial firms as adversaries for airto-air training missions. The analysis should include the following: 

(1) The potential cost to the federal government to contract 

for such a program, including a comparison of the equivalent 

costs to accomplish the same pilot training through use of assets organic to the military departments; 

(2) A comparison of the cost per flying hour for flying adversarial training missions by the military departments versus expected cost per flying hour for F–5s operated by commercial 

firms; 

(3) The number of adversarial missions flown annually by organic aircraft including, but not limited to, F–15s, F–16s, F– 

18s, and F–22s, and an assessment of the impact of flying such 

missions on the Department’s flying hour programs and on aircrew proficiency and training requirements; 

(4) The number of military service members engaged as aircrew and maintenance personnel to support the missions identified in (3); 

(5) An assessment of the costs for maintenance and training 

for personnel associated with commercial firms that would operate the F–5 aggressor aircraft; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
256 

(6) An assessment of the ability of the F–5 to replicate 

fourth- and fifth-generation threats in support of F–22 and F– 

35 training; 

(7) An assessment of whether existing F–5 aircraft, and the 

associated logistical requirements such as spare parts and engines, are readily available to commercial firms in quantities 

sufficient to provide adequate air-to-air training; 

(8) An assessment of whether such a program could help in 

the preservation of the useful service life of military aircraft 

fleets; 

(9) An assessment of Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness requirements and aircrew certification processes to 

ensure safety of flight for such operations; 

(10) An assessment of government liability, insurance requirements, or other legal impediments; and (11) Any other 

data that the Secretary determines is appropriate in evaluating the potential for an F–5 training program to be operated 

by commercial firms. 

The committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services on the results of the analysis within 30 days of 

completion of the report. 

Availability of Full-Time Trainers in the Army 

The committee is aware that the Army has had to deploy a significant number of personnel typically assigned to training positions to support the needs of ground commanders in ongoing contingency operations. In February 2010, the Commander of the U.S. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command cited a significant decline 

in the total number of trainers assigned to his command, as well 

as an increased reliance upon contracted civilian rather than military trainers. 

The committee is concerned about the Army’s ability to provide 

the necessary personnel to train U.S. soldiers as well as to support 

the demands of ongoing operations. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the 

availability of full-time trainers in the Army and report the results 

of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services. This review should evaluate: 

(1) The ratio of full-time trainers to trainees; 

(2) Changes in manning authorizations for trainers over 

time; 

(3) The extent to which the Army has experienced challenges 

in filling its training positions; 

(4) Any measures the Army has taken to address these challenges, including the extent to which the Army has shifted its 

instructor/trainer force from uniformed service personnel to civilians or contractors; and 

(5) The extent, if any, that U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command officials have assessed the impact of any increased 

reliance on civilians or contractors on the quantity or quality 

of the training they are able to provide to their trainees. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
257 

Aviation Assets for National Guard 

The committee is concerned about the force structure changes in 

the Department of Defense over the past several years, and in particular, its potential impact on the readiness levels of the national 

guard. Of particular concern is the potential impact from the drawdown of mobility assets that are used by the national guard to support its homeland defense mission and enable quick delivery of 

cargo and troops. The committee remains concerned that national 

guard units will have a hollow force structure and their immediate 

tactical requirements will continue to be unfilled without a coherent recapitalization plan. The lack of such a plan could leave a gap 

in the national guard’s ability to meet its requirements to support 

U.S. Northern Command and to provide critical support during 

emergencies within the designated Federal Emergency Management Agency regions of the United States and its territories. 

The committee notes that the recently released ‘‘Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016’’ recommends a tactical airlift force structure without consideration for the direct support mission needs of the Department of the Army and without express consideration of airlift force structure and basing requirements to 

meet the national guard’s title 32, United States Code, responsibilities. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 

Force, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Air National Guard, to brief the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on 

the Department’s tactical airlift force structure and requirements 

by November 1, 2010. The briefing should describe, at a minimum: 

(1) The number and type of fixed-wing aircraft needed to 

meet the tactical airlift requirements of the Department of Defense, to include the direct support mission needs of the Army; 

(2) The number and type of fixed-wing aircraft needed to fulfill the national guard’s title 32 missions, as well as the additional missions assigned to it in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review; 

(3) A detailed cost analysis of using Army and Air Force mobility assets to provide direct support airlift to the Army and 

to meet the national guard’s title 32 mission requirements; and 

(4) Tactical Army and Air Force airlift force structure composition by numbers that best fulfills the requirements in (1) and 

(2) in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. 

Completion of Annual Training Requirements for Army and Marine 

Corps 

The committee recognizes that, as a result of the high pace of 

overseas contingency operations and demand for ready forces, the 

Army and Marine Corps have experienced decreased dwell time between deployments. The committee understands that both services 

have annual training requirements that all active component forces 

are required to complete in addition to pre-deployment training requirements that apply to all forces deploying to the Republic of 

Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. However, in light of 

decreased dwell times, the committee is concerned that forces may 

not be completing the required annual training prior to going to the 

Combat Training Centers or other locations for pre-deployment 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
258 

training and, therefore, are spending some of their time at the centers training on tasks that should have been completed at home 

station. Given the services’ plans to expand training to prepare 

forces for a fuller spectrum of operations, the committee believes it 

will be even more critical for individuals and units to accomplish 

these annual training requirements. 

In view of the Government Accountability Office’s prior training 

evaluations, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the Army’s and the Marine Corps’ ability 

to complete home station training requirements and to report the 

results of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services. This review should 

evaluate: 

(1) The nature of annual training requirements that active 

component combat arms and combat support forces are required to complete at home station; 

(2) The extent to which forces are completing established 

training requirements, to include the extent to which units are 

required to validate completion of the tasks and demonstrate 

proficiency at home station prior to training at a Combat 

Training Center or other locations; and 

(3) Any factors affecting the ability of forces to complete 

training, such as the availability of personnel and equipment, 

and the impact, if any, on training at the Combat Training 

Centers or other locations, if home station training cannot be 

fully completed. 

Criticality of Pre-Deployment Language Training 

The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense is 

updating its strategic plan to meet the needs for enhanced language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise. However, 

the committee is concerned about pre-deployment language training for general-purpose troops deploying to the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan in light of the International Security Assistance Force 

(ISAF) commander’s objectives and requirements expressed in his 

four-point initiative to overcome the language challenges in Afghanistan. 

The committee commends the Department and the military services for their endeavors to address this issue and to provide the appropriate proficiency level for deployable forces to Afghanistan. 

While supportive of these efforts, the committee is concerned with 

the lack of standardization of policies regarding the level of emphasis on unit-level language training during the pre-deployment 

training phase. While the committee understands the pressures 

and the challenges of available time for pre-deployment training, 

the committee encourages the military services to recognize that 

language skills should be considered a high priority and critical 

when planning for deployment. 

The committee directs the Department and military services to 

review their language training priorities and program requirements concerning the language barrier and mission in Afghanistan. 

Upon completion of this review, the committee directs the Department to brief the House Armed Services Committee on the findings 

and conclusions no later than September 1, 2010. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
259 

F–35 Lightning II Aircraft and National Guard 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in conjunction with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to determine the 

requirement for concurrent and proportional fielding of F–35 Lightning II aircraft in the reserve component and report the findings 

to the congressional defense committees not later than January 1, 

2011. 

Language, Cultural Awareness, and Regional Expertise 

Recent operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have highlighted the need for today’s military establishment to be trained and ready to engage the world with an 

appreciation of diverse cultures, and to communicate directly with 

local populations. The committee is aware that the Department of 

Defense has recognized the need to place more emphasis on enhancing foreign language, regional expertise, and cultural awareness capabilities, and has undertaken numerous initiatives to do 

so. While there is general agreement that some level of foreign language skills, regional expertise, and cultural awareness is important for today’s military, determining the optimal proficiency levels 

and how to distribute such capabilities throughout the general-purpose forces (meaning military personnel who are neither language 

professionals nor regional experts) is more difficult. Training general-purpose forces in language, regional expertise, and cultural 

awareness prior to deployment is largely the responsibility of the 

military services. 

The Government Accountability Office has previously reported on 

actions needed to improve the effectiveness of the Department’s 

language and regional proficiency transformation efforts. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to review the services’ language, regional expertise, and cultural 

awareness training plans as they apply to the general purpose 

forces and report the results of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. Because of the continued presence of the Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their missions typically 

require close contact with foreign populations, this review should 

focus on the ground forces. This review should include an assessment of the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps have: 

(1) Defined training requirements for language proficiency, 

regional expertise, and cultural awareness; 

(2) Integrated these areas into pre-deployment training and 

other joint exercises, and developed any metrics to evaluate 

success; 

(3) Faced challenges, if any, in implementing these plans; 

and 

(4) Incorporated lessons learned from ongoing operations into 

training programs. 

Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting 

In recent years, the military services have directed several 

changes in the ways they report unit readiness. Specifically, the 

Army has updated its readiness reporting policy and has directed 

its units to provide additional information concerning its abilities 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
260 

to perform directed or assigned missions as well as its core missions. The Army reports this information in its readiness reporting 

system that feeds information to the Defense Readiness Reporting 

System (DRRS). Leveraging the Army’s approach, the Marine 

Corps has recently developed its own system in order to collect and 

analyze readiness data to feed information to DRRS. 

To better understand the extent to which these changes will help 

the military services capture data more accurately on the readiness 

of their respective forces, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General of the United States to review Army and Marine Corps 

readiness reporting processes and to report the results of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services. This review should: 

(1) Assess any changes that the Army and Marine Corps 

have made to their approach to reporting readiness; 

(2) Identify the steps that units have taken to implement the 

directed readiness reporting changes, including the extent to 

which units are consistently reporting their readiness; 

(3) Determine the extent to which the Army and Marine 

Corps have aligned these changes with existing strategies for 

training and deploying forces, such as the Army’s Force Generation cycle; 

(4) Assess the impact of these changes on the content of 

readiness information available to decision-makers within the 

Department of Defense and Congress; and 

(5) Assess the impact, if any, on development and fielding of 

DRRS. 

Ship Maintenance Industrial Base Support 

The committee is concerned that the Navy’s recommendation to 

homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) at Naval Station Mayport (NAVSTA Mayport), Florida, could result in the relocation of a critical warfighting asset to a region that may lack the 

ship maintenance industrial base necessary to meet the specialized 

repair, maintenance, and related readiness requirements of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Even though the Navy plans to build 

the necessary facilities at considerable cost, no plan has been presented to address the lack of a trained, highly skilled workforce 

necessary to staff those facilities and maintain these complex systems. As a result, the committee understands that implementation 

of the Navy’s recommendation would require maintenance teams 

from other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeport locations to 

be sent to NAVSTA Mayport temporarily to support maintenance 

requirements, potentially at significant additional cost. 

Additionally, the committee is aware that the existing private 

ship maintenance assets located in the Jacksonville, Florida, region 

has evolved to support the current fleet of non-nuclear-powered 

ships at NAVSTA Mayport. Under current ship retirement plans, 

these private ship maintenance capabilities will face severe work 

reductions, placing their continued existence in jeopardy. The committee does not believe that placing a critical warfighting asset at 

a location with inadequate maintenance support capabilities, implementing a recommendation that could result in significantly increased ship maintenance costs, or allowing the nation’s ship maintenance industrial base to erode are acceptable outcomes. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
261 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees by December 15, 2010, on the ability of the private ship maintenance industrial base in northeast Florida to support nuclear-powered aircraft 

carrier maintenance requirements, the likely costs to the Navy that 

could result from establishing such maintenance capabilities within 

the local industrial base, and the impacts on costs and workforce 

scheduling that could result if the Navy must provide the maintenance workforce from another nuclear-powered aircraft carrier 

homeport location. In addition, the Secretary is directed to submit 

a copy of the report to the Comptroller General of the United 

States concurrent with submission to the congressional defense 

committees. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide an assessment of the report to the congressional defense committees 

within 90 days after receiving the report by the Secretary of the 

Navy. The assessment should: 

(1) Review the Navy’s report for thoroughness and completeness; 

(2) Assess the ability of the northeast Florida industrial base 

to develop capabilities to support nuclear-powered aircraft carrier maintenance requirements; 

(3) Assess how, over a 10-year budget window, the construction of CVN maintenance facilities at NAVSTA Mayport will 

affect CVN maintenance costs, including recurring and non-recurring costs; and 

(4) Assess whether homeporting a nuclear-powered aircraft 

carrier at NAVSTA Mayport would provide sufficient workload 

to allow the local ship repair industrial base to remain viable 

in light of current ship retirement plans. 

Ship Material Readiness 

The committee notes that reduced manning on many Navy surface combatant ships has added risk to achieving expected service 

life, as stated in the Secretary of the Navy’s February 1, 2010, report to Congress on Surface Ship Material Readiness. Based on 

preliminary work by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

the committee is aware that the Navy has reduced enlisted requirements, authorizations, and on-hand personnel levels for its cruisers 

and destroyers since 1991 but lacks a sound analytical basis for 

some of these reductions. GAO also noted that shipboard requirements, including force protection and anti-terrorism and ballistic 

missile defense missions, have grown since the Navy began reducing crew sizes. According to GAO, in-port and underway maintenance and preservation requirements have remained steady as 

crew sizes have declined. While some Navy officials have noted 

that automation can reduce underway watch-station requirements, 

GAO reported it can sometimes increase maintenance requirements. 

The committee is also aware of a Department of the Navy Naval 

Inspector General report dated July 2, 2009, which states, ‘‘Relative to other warfare communities, interviews with surface commands continue to reveal significant distress in meeting material 

and operational readiness requirements.’’ Among the factors cited 

as contributing to this situation were: a shortage of funding (to the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
262 

point that sailors are spending their own money to purchase required tools and supplies to meet operational and certification requirements); manning challenges; reduced training opportunities; 

deferred maintenance; and greater demands from the Inter-deployment Readiness Cycle. 

The committee recognizes the stresses that the increased operational tempo of overseas contingency operations has placed on the 

Navy’s surface combatant fleet and acknowledges that the Navy is 

taking steps in the fiscal year 2011 budget request to address some 

of the issues cited above, particularly in the areas of steaming days 

and deferred maintenance. However, the committee agrees with 

GAO that the Navy lacks the reliable data it needs to effectively 

evaluate the impact of the changes it has made to its manning requirements and training programs and how these changes have 

contributed to declining ship material readiness. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit with the fiscal year 2012 budget documents a report that 

describes the impact of changes in training and reductions in crew 

size has on the material readiness of its ships, including the ships’ 

ability to perform required maintenance tasks and pass required 

inspections; any projected effects on the lifespan of individual 

ships; and any effects on overall reported readiness. The report 

should include a discussion of the methodology, including metrics, 

which the Navy used to make this assessment, and based on the 

results, any adjustments in training and manning that the Navy 

plans to make to address its findings. The report also should include steps the Navy has taken to establish a stringent tool-control 

program, through appropriate commands, for all surface combatant 

ships similar to the tool-control program that exists for aviation 

squadrons, and describe the funding required to implement such a 

program. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States, within 60 days of receipt of the fiscal year 2012 budget documents, to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on its assessment of the completeness of the report submitted by the Secretary of the Navy and describing the status of the actions taken 

by the Navy to establish the tool-control program. Further, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a follow-on 

report to the congressional defense committees that assesses the 

reasonableness of the Navy’s methodology and conclusions and that 

assesses the impact of the tool-control program established for 

Navy surface combatant ships within 120 days of receipt of the fiscal year 2012 budget documents. 

Simulation Training for F–35 Joint Strike Fighter 

The committee is concerned that the requirements for the flight 

simulation devices under development for the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter may not wholly represent the training needs of the participating military departments. The committee believes that any 

flight simulator developed for the F–35 program should fully comply with service requirements in order to preclude a costly retrofit 

if needed capabilities are not resident in initial design. The committee is aware of the growing reliance on distributed training networks, such as the Air Force’s Distributed Mission Operations, and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
263 

believes that the F–35 Joint Program Office should consider the 

military departments’ desires to operate F–35 flight simulators in 

a distributed network with other aircraft simulators. Utilizing the 

F–35 flight simulators in such a fashion would improve the combat 

skills training and overall readiness of the military forces to operate in an increasingly complex and integrated combat environment. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

the Secretary of the Navy, and the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to re-examine and, if necessary, refine the requirements for F–35 flight simulation devices. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide written notification of 

compliance to the congressional defense committees, by December 

1, 2010, detailing the agreed-upon requirements and include an explanation of any changes made to existing F–35 flight simulator device requirements, and the impact on training and readiness. 

Surface Ship Life Cycle Management 

The committee applauds the Navy for establishing the Surface 

Ship Life Cycle Management (SSLCM) Activity and for undertaking the Surface Ship Service Life Assessment Pilot Program. 

Both efforts are aimed at ensuring the Navy’s surface combatant 

ships achieve their intended service life, which is a key underpinning of the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. The committee notes 

that in the past, the surface ship class maintenance plans have not 

been as detailed, nor have they been maintained with the same 

technical rigor as those for aircraft carriers and submarines. The 

committee agrees with the Navy’s assessment that the Planned 

Maintenance philosophy of the past decade, with limited time spent 

in depot availability periods coupled with multiple pier-side continuous maintenance availabilities, has added risk to the Navy’s ability to obtain expected service life from the fleet. Through the pilot 

program’s inputs into the SSLCM Activity, the committee understands the Navy will have an analytical basis on which to better 

focus maintenance and repair decisions and funding, and establish 

risk-based measures of criticality for deficiencies that may arise in 

the future. 

Training for Global Ballistic Missile Defense 

Each military service is responsible for missile defense training 

on the individual missile defense assets which the service owns and 

operates. For example, the Navy is responsible for Aegis Ballistic 

Missile Defense training and the Army for Theater High Altitude 

Area Defense training. However, missile defense operations are 

global and inherently joint. The effectiveness of the global ballistic 

missile defense system is dependent upon the synchronization of 

these individual assets across each military service, and the committee believes that missile defense training must be similarly synchronized. 

The committee is concerned that current individual service training programs for missile defense do not fully reflect the global and 

joint nature of ballistic missile defense system operations. The committee further observes that no single entity has clear responsibility for joint missile defense training. The committee believes that 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
264 

gaps in joint missile defense training, from the lowest sensor or 

shooter operator level to the highest levels of decision-making on 

combatant command (COCOM) staffs, must be identified and rectified. 

The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011, that contains the following: 

(1) A description of existing missile defense training and 

education, including training of COCOM staffs and service 

component staffs; 

(2) An assessment of the synchronization and standardization across existing training programs, including best practices; 

and 

(3) Recommendations for training improvements, including 

recommended roles and responsibilities, organizational models, 

resources, and facilities required for joint missile defense training. 

OTHER MATTERS

Air Force Food Transformation Initiative 

The committee is aware that the Air Force has undertaken an 

initiative to transform its food service operations, including dining 

facilities, flight kitchens, snack bars, and catering services. This 

will be conducted through a two-phased pilot program that will encompass 12 military bases, beginning with six bases in October 

2010, and then six months later, incorporating the remaining six 

bases. The plan ultimately is to include all 78 Air Force bases in 

the initiative. The initiative will affect both appropriated funded facilities and non-appropriated funded (NAF) facilities. 

The committee understands that while no civilian or military 

personnel employed at the appropriated funded facilities will be affected, NAF employees either could be reassigned to another position or have their employment terminated. Furthermore, prime 

contracts currently held by Ability One (a non-profit entity that 

provides employment opportunities for the blind and severely disabled) will be brought under the new initiative. The committee is 

concerned that this initiative is being converted from performance 

by government employees to contractor employees without a publicprivate competition being conducted. Furthermore, the committee 

believes that all NAF employees and Ability One employees should 

have the ‘‘right of first refusal’’ for any positions for which they 

would be eligible that are available under the initiative. 

The committee recognizes that improving food service at Air 

Force bases is an important objective. However, the committee does 

not believe that the Air Force has provided an adequate rationale 

for its food transformation strategy, which is expected to result in 

an increase in food service fees to military personnel. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of the Air Force to restrict 

this initiative to the six initial bases and conduct a thorough review of how it is meeting objectives before any additional bases are 

brought under the initiative. The Secretary should provide a written notification of compliance to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after completion of the review. In addition, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
265 

undertake a comprehensive review of the initiative as implemented 

at the first six bases and report its findings and recommendations 

to the congressional defense committees within six months after 

the award of the initial contract. The Comptroller General’s review 

should address the following questions: 

(1) How has the initiative achieved the Air Force objectives 

to improve food quality, increase the customer base, and expand hours at dining facilities? 

(2) Is the concept of a single food service provider to serve 

appropriated funded dining facilities, non-appropriated funded 

facilities, and catering requirements a viable solution? Are 

there other models that could be considered? 

(3) Since both appropriated funded facilities and non-appropriated funded facilities now will be managed by a single contractor, what impact will this have on the appropriated funded 

facilities (including funding for military construction and the 

purchase of food and supplies)? What impact will this have on 

NAF facilities and profits? 

(4) How effective is the food service officer in managing the 

contract? What were the challenges in implementing the contract? 

(5) Was there adequate competition for the contract? 

(6) How were efficiencies achieved under the initiative, without impacting the appropriated funded facilities? 

(7) What was the percentage increase in food service fees 

paid by military personnel as compared to food service expenses paid before the initiative took effect? 

(8) What impact has the initiative had on civilian (including 

NAF employees) and military personnel, and employees of 

Ability One? How many Ability One and NAF employees were 

employed by the prime contractor? How were small businesses 

and their employees impacted? 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force not to move 

forward with expanding the pilot program to the additional six 

bases until 90 days after the Comptroller General has submitted 

the report to the congressional defense committees. 

Army Post Laundry Facilities 

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Army requested 

legislative authority in fiscal year 2011, to allow money received for 

work performed at Army-owned and Army-operated post laundries 

to cover the cost of operating and maintaining these laundry facilities. While the committee cannot provide the requested legislative 

relief due to mandatory spending limitations, the committee believes the Army should adequately fund the operating requirements of the post laundries and not rely on proceeds from the laundries to keep the operations solvent. The committee understands 

that in past years approximately $3.0 million in proceeds from the 

laundry operations were applied annually toward operations and 

maintenance of the four Army post facilities, and that absent the 

requested legislation, these funds will not be available to pay these 

costs. The committee expects the Army to cover this shortfall using 

some of the additional Base Operations Support (BOS) funding authorized in title 3 of this Act. Beginning in fiscal year 2012, the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
266 

committee expects the Army to budget in BOS for this requirement. 

Army Reporting Requirements 

As part of the annual national defense authorization acts, the 

committee tasks Army officials with new reporting requirements 

covering a wide range of issues. The committee understands that 

these reports require a significant amount of time and effort for the 

Department of the Army to produce. In addition, the committee understands that the need for some of the reports may wane over 

time as policies shift, and that some reports overlap, in terms of 

subject matter, with other established reporting requirements. 

Therefore, in order to streamline communications between the 

Department of the Army and Congress, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Army, by September 1, 2010, to provide a list of 

existing reporting requirements that the Secretary believes Congress should repeal or modify in future national defense authorization acts. 

Human Terrain System 

The committee remains supportive of the Human Terrain System 

(HTS) developed and executed by the Army to leverage social 

science expertise to support operational commanders in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. However, the 

committee is increasingly concerned that in the rush to respond to 

operational requirements in two theaters of conflict while simultaneously optimizing and institutionalizing HTS capability, the Army 

has not sufficiently addressed key concerns of the social science 

community. The committee understands that it may not be possible 

to fully address all of their concerns, but if HTS continues to rely 

heavily on the participation of social scientists as part of the 

Human Terrain Teams, to have long-term viability among the research community, then those researchers must have a voice in the 

evolution of HTS capability. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to develop a broad range of opportunities to leverage social 

science expertise to support key missions for the Department, including irregular warfare, counterinsurgency, and stability and reconstruction operations. The committee also encourages the social 

science research community to actively engage the Department to 

help shape future cooperative activities in ways that are productive 

and mutually beneficial. 

National Guard Support for Charitable Organizations 

The committee is aware that section 508 of title 32, United 

States Code, provides authority for members and units of the national guard to provide certain services to youth and charitable organizations under certain conditions. The committee notes that the 

existing authority allows the Secretary of Defense to designate 

youth or charitable organizations as eligible to receive assistance. 

The committee believes that opportunities to engage with and observe national guard members conducting required training would 

be of particular benefit to organizations, such as Reach for Tomorrow, that are aimed at improving individual performance and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
267 

achieving academic and personal excellence of junior and senior 

high school students. The committee encourages the Secretary to 

exercise this authority when appropriate and consider such organizations for eligibility under this section. 

Notification of Use of Authority To Expedite Background 

Investigations 

Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a provision 

that would amend section 1564 of title 10, United States Code, to 

allow the Secretary of Defense to use expedited procedures for completing background investigations for the granting of security clearances for military personnel who have been retired or separated for 

a physical disability pursuant to chapter 61 of title 10, United 

States Code. As the committee notes, this will facilitate the transition from a military to a federal civilian career for these individuals. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report by 

letter to the congressional defense and intelligence committees, by 

February 1, 2011, and annually thereafter through 2015, the number of background investigations performed under this authority. 

Operation and Support Costs for Non-Standard Items of 

Equipment 

The committee is aware that operation and support (O&S) costs 

can constitute up to 70 percent of the lifecycle cost to the government for a weapon system. Because O&S costs are by far the largest percentage of cost in a system’s lifespan from research and development to disposal, the committee is concerned that the military 

departments may not be planning sufficiently for the O&S costs 

that will be incurred when non-standard items, such as those fielded under rapid fielding initiatives or in response to Joint Urgent 

Operational Needs Statements, migrate to programs of record. 

First among these are the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) vehicle and its smaller variant, the Military All-Terrain 

Vehicle. The committee understands that O&S costs for these vehicles alone are expected to average at least $2.0 billion per year. 

Other systems include equipment fielded for operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan such as 

jammers, radios, armor kits, Aerostats, mine rollers, unmanned 

aerial systems, MC–12 Project Liberty aircraft, and counter rocket, 

artillery, sniper, and mortar systems, among hundreds of others. 

The committee recommends the Department of Defense and the 

military departments take action to ensure that these systems are 

in compliance with section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) which requires 

development of a comprehensive lifecycle management plan and 

product support strategy for each major weapon system. 

Private Security Guards Functions To Be Performed by Civilian 

Employees 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is reducing 

its reliance on the use of private-sector security guards, pursuant 

to section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). Additional restrictions on the use 

of private security guards were further enacted as amendments to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
268 

Section 332 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (109–364) and the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). The committee notes 

that nothing in the law requires the Department to use military 

personnel in these positions, especially during these times of increased operational tempo. The committee, therefore, directs the 

Department to review its guidance with regard to the conversion 

of the private sector security guard positions and include 

prioritization of the use of civilian employees to fill those positions. 

The committee further directs the Department to provide a written 

letter of compliance by October 1, 2010 to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee with details of that review. 

Sale of Arsenal Products Outside the Department of Defense 

The Department of Defense submitted a legislative proposal that 

would amend section 2563 of title 10, United States Code, to enable 

the arsenals to sell their products and services outside the Department of Defense. The Department noted in its comments accompanying the requested provision that, ‘‘Those facilities that have 

made effective use of section 2563 authority and built substantial 

partnerships have reduced the cost of products; obtained private 

sector investment in government facilities; and enhanced readiness 

by improving quality and timeliness of industrial facilities.’’ 

The committee notes that the partnerships fostered by section 

2563, of title 10, United States Code, because they are related to 

the core capabilities of the arsenals and other industrial facilities 

and therefore enhance military readiness, are characteristic of 

those which the committee had desired to see developed through 

the Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI). The committee is 

open to reconsidering the Department’s request to amend section 

2563 of title 10, United States Code, after the Secretary of the 

Army provides the report required elsewhere in this Act regarding 

ASPI improvement. 

Security Clearance Reform 

The Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team (JSSRT) issued 

a report in February 2010, outlining its strategic framework for 

moving forward with reforming the security clearance process. 

JSSRT was formed to transform and modernize the security clearance process across the federal government, and includes personnel 

from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, 

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. The intent of the transformation effort is to promote reciprocity, eliminate the continuing backlog for processing requests, 

and reduce unnecessary investigation requests. The framework outlined in the February 2010 JSSRT report highlights potential performance measures, a communications strategy, roles and responsibilities, and areas to develop metrics to measure the quality of security clearance investigations and adjudications. 

The committee notes that significant progress has been made on 

a number of initiatives as a result of increased resources, improvements in policy, and changes to antiquated information technology 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
269 

systems. However, the committee is concerned that security clearance processing remains on the high-risk list of the Government 

Accountability Office. While the committee further notes that 

JSSRT’s February 2010 strategic framework highlights significant 

progress on behalf of the executive branch to approve initial requests for personnel security clearances in a timely manner, the 

committee continues to believe that it will be imperative for the executive branch to demonstrate the ability to sustain that progress, 

and also incorporate quality into every step of the process through 

measures that can be readily defined and quantified. 

Supply Chain Management 

The committee is aware improvements to supply chain management within the Department of Defense (DOD) have been slower 

than desired. The Government Accountability Office has placed the 

Department’s supply chain management on its high risk list because of long standing problems, due in part to the lack of a complete and accurate inventory of all the Department’s assets. Having 

an accurate inventory not only improves supply chain management, but provides benefits to the warfighter, enhances mission 

planning and budgeting, and improves the financial auditing within the Department. The committee notes that one tool that could 

facilitate improvements in the Department’s supply chain management is the enhanced use of item unique identifiers. The committee, therefore, believes that full implementation of the Department’s Item Unique Identification (IUID) policy, issued in 2008, 

would help the Department correct some of its supply chain management problems. 

The committee further notes that the Department has been successful in implementing its IUID policy with regard to new systems, but has been less successful within the logistics community 

in marking legacy property with IUID tags. The committee recognizes that the costs of retrofitting existing equipment inventories 

with IUID tags could be substantial, and that the Department is 

developing a business case that would support the need for future 

investments to be made in this area. The committee encourages the 

Deputy Chief Management Officer to review this business case to 

determine how IUID policy factors into the Department’s strategy 

for improved supply chain management and improved financial accountability of its assets. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding 

This section would authorize $167.6 billion in operation and 

maintenance funding for the military departments and defensewide activities. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
270 

SUBTITLE B—ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency 

for Certain Costs in Connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minnesota 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

not more than $5,611,671 in fiscal year 2011 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. This transfer is to satisfy reimbursement to the 

Environmental Protection Agency for costs incurred by the Agency 

at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. 

Section 312—Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated Penalties in Connection With Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

not more than $153,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund established under subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986. This transfer is to satisfy a stipulated penalty 

against Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, for failure of the 

Navy to sample certain monitoring wells in a timely manner. 

Section 313—Testing and Certification Plan for Operational Use of 

an Aviation Biofuel Derived From Materials That Do Not Compete With Food Stocks 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

Congress a testing and certification plan for operational use of a 

biofuel that is derived from materials that do not compete with 

food stocks. 

Section 314—Report Identifying Hybrid or Electric Propulsion Systems and Other Fuel-Saving Technologies for Incorporation into 

Tactical Motor Vehicles 

This section would require the secretary of each military department to submit to Congress a report identifying hybrid or electric 

propulsion systems and other vehicle technologies that reduce consumption of fossil fuels and are suitable for incorporation into the 

current fleet of tactical motor vehicles of each armed force under 

the jurisdiction of the secretary. 

SUBTITLE C—WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 321—Technical Amendments to Requirement for Service 

Contract Inventory 

This section would amend paragraph (c) of section 2330a of title 

10, United States Code, to make technical corrections to the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual inventory of services performed by contractors. This section would clarify 

that the responsibility for the development of the inventory should 

reside with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, who would be supported by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee believes that the 

inventory has much broader applicability than just as an acquisiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
271 

tion tracking tool; the inventory can facilitate the Department of 

Defense’s human capital planning and its efforts to determine the 

right mix of military personnel, civilian employees, and contractors. 

It also is a valuable tool for budgeting purposes. 

This section also would clarify that information on full time 

equivalents derived from actual direct labor hours and not estimates should be used in the development of the Department’s inventories. 

Section 322—Repeal of Conditions on Expansion of Functions Performed Under Prime Vendor Contracts for Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair 

This section would repeal section 346 of the Strom Thurmond 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 

Law 105–261) as amended by section 336 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). 

The committee notes that section 346 of Public Law 105–261 and 

section 336 of Public Law 106–65 were intended to give Congress 

additional oversight on the then-emerging concept of prime vendor 

support (PVS) strategies for depot-level maintenance and repair. 

Congress’ intention was for the provisions to apply only to PVS for 

depot-level maintenance and repair. The committee understands, 

however, that the provisions, as written, have recently been interpreted as applying to any prime-vendor contract, including medical, 

electronic commerce, and industrial prime-vendor contracts, as well 

as to performance-based logistics contracts. Because these concepts 

are now established contracting mechanisms within the Department of Defense, the committee understands the reporting requirements of section 346 of Public Law 105–261 have created an undue 

burden on the Department of the Defense and the military departments. 

Section 323—Pilot Program on Best Value for Contracts for Private 

Security Functions 

This section would create a three-year pilot program within the 

Department of Defense to implement a ‘‘best value’’ procurement 

standard for private security contracts in the Republic of Iraq and 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This section also would require the contracting officer to provide a written justification for 

each ‘‘best value’’ contract awarded under this pilot program. Contracts awarded under this pilot program would continue until the 

end of their performance period, irrespective of whether the pilot 

program has been terminated. The Secretary of Defense would 

have the discretion to continue with a best-value program for private security contracts following termination of the best-value pilot 

program at the end of fiscal year 2013. The committee recognizes 

that such authority already exists in the Federal Acquisition Regulations but is rarely used; this section would facilitate the authorities for best-value contracts in these circumstances. Furthermore, 

this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, by January 15 of each year until 2013, to the congressional 

defense committees identifying the contracts awarded under this 

pilot program and the considerations, other than cost, in the award 

of such contracts. The committee notes that nothing in this section 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
272 

is intended to affect contracts for private security functions that 

are awarded through the Department of State. 

Section 324—Standards and Certification for Private Security 

Contractors 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to issue policy guidance requiring the establishment of a third-party certification process for specified operational and business practice standards to which private security contractors must adhere as a condition for selection for defense contracts for the performance of private security functions. In addition, all private security contractor 

employees who are required to carry weapons in the performance 

of their duties under a defense contract would be required to obtain 

basic weapons training certification from a reputable certifying 

body as a requirement of that contract. This section would not 

apply to intelligence activities. 

Section 325—Prohibition on Establishing Goals or Quotas for Conversion of Functions to Performance by Department of Defense 

Civilian Employees 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from establishing numerical goals or quotas for the conversion of Department 

of Defense functions to performance by civilian employees unless 

such goals or quotas are based on the requirements outlined in section 235, section 2330a, or section 2463 of title 10, United States 

Code. The section also would require that the Secretary use the Department’s costing methodology guidance (Directive-type Memorandum 09–007, Estimating and Comparing Full Costs of Civilian 

and Military Manpower and Contractor support) or successor guidance in making such conversion decisions. The secretaries of the 

military departments may issue supplemental guidance to assist in 

decisions affecting their department. The Secretary of Defense 

would be required to provide to the congressional defense committees, by December 31, 2010, a report on the decisions to convert positions to civilian employee performance during fiscal year 2010. 

The Comptroller General would be required to provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees of the Secretary’s report 120 days after the Secretary’s report is submitted. 

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 331—Revision to Reporting Requirement Relating to 

Operation and Financial Support for Military Museums 

This section would modify section 489 of title 10, United States 

Code, and require a biennial report on the condition of military museums rather than the current requirement to submit annual reports. Furthermore, this section would delete the requirement to 

submit the organizational structure of the reported museums. 

Section 332—Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to 

Corrosion Prevention Projects and Activities 

This section would amend section 2228(e) of title 10, United 

States Code, as amended by section 371 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
273 

add a requirement that the annual report submitted to Congress 

by the Secretary of Defense on the funding provided for corrosion 

mitigation and control include the annual corrosion reports submitted by the military departments to the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense in compliance with section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417). The reports submitted by the military departments would be part of the review by the Comptroller General 

of the United States required in section 371(e)(2) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181). This section would also amend section 2228(e)(C) of title 10, 

United States Code, to require that the report submitted by the 

Secretary include the funding requirement and funding provided 

for the previous fiscal year. 

Section 333—Modification and Repeal of Certain Reporting 

Requirements 

This section would amend section 323 and repeal section 349 of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to eliminate out-of-date reporting 

requirements. This section would also repeal section 355 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181) to eliminate a redundant ground forces readiness reporting requirement. 

Section 334—Report on Air Sovereignty Alert Mission 

This section would require the Commander of United States 

Northern Command, in consultation with the Director of the National Guard Bureau, to report by March 1, 2011, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services on the Air Sovereignty Alert mission and Operation Noble 

Eagle. The report shall include the status of implementation of the 

recommendations made in the Government Accountability Office 

report entitled ‘‘Actions Need to Improve Management of Air Sovereignty Alert Operations to Protect U.S. Airspace.’’ 

Section 335—Report on the SEAD/DEAD Mission Requirements for 

the Air Force 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services, not later than 120 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility and desirability of 

designating the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses/Destruction of 

Enemy Air Defenses mission as a responsibility of the Air National 

Guard. In preparing the report, the Secretary shall consult with 

the Director of the National Guard Bureau, who shall be authorized to provide independent comment and analysis on the report. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
274 

SUBTITLE E—LIMITATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF AUTHORITY

Section 341—Permanent Authority to Accept and Use Landing 

Fees Charged for Use of Domestic Military Airfields by Civil Aircraft 

This section would add section 2697 of title 10, United States 

Code, and authorize the secretary of a military department to impose landing fees for use by civil aircraft at domestic military airfields for the purpose of funding operation and maintenance of such 

airfields. 

Section 342—Improvement and Extension of Arsenal Support 

Program Initiative 

This section would amend section 341 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to: repeal two functions of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative 

(ASPI), to disestablish the ASPI-related loan guarantees which the 

committee understands have never been utilized, to authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to extend ASPI through fiscal year 2012, to 

require the Secretary to prioritize the remaining nine functions of 

the ASPI, and to require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the ASPI priorities prior to the extension of authority taking effect. 

The committee remains concerned that the arsenals have had 

limited success in attracting ASPI tenants that enhance their core 

manufacturing mission and related workforce skills, as reported by 

the Government Accountability Office in November 2009 (GAO–10– 

167R). Instead, in the committee’s view, ASPI has become an expensive means of managing arsenal overhead. According to the 

Congressional Budget Office, Congress has directed some $89.4 

million to ASPI through September 2009, with a return on capital, 

defined as savings divided by invested capital, of less than 2 percent. 

Accordingly, this section would require the Secretary of the Army 

to submit a report to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act that would address the three recommendations 

included in GAO–10–167R, namely: 

(1) Distinguish the Army’s highest priorities from among the 

ASPI purposes as part of an overall strategy to achieve its desired results; 

(2) Establish performance goals for the ASPI program; and 

(3) Establish outcome-focused performance measures to assess 

the program the Army has made toward addressing the purpose of ASPI. 

Section 343—Extension of Authority To Reimburse Expenses for 

Certain Navy Mess Operations 

This section would amend section 1014 of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) by extending until September 30, 2012, the authority of the Navy to purchase meals on behalf of embarked members 

of non-governmental organizations, host and partner nations, joint 

services, and U.S. Government agencies and foreign national paVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
275 

tients treated on Navy ships and their escorts during the Navy’s 

execution of humanitarian and civic assistance missions. 

Section 344—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Army 

Human Terrain System 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from obligating more than 50 percent of the remaining funds for the Army 

Human Terrain System (HTS) until several documents are submitted to the congressional defense committees. These documents 

include: the independent assessment of HTS called for by the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010; a validation of all 

HTS requirements, including any prior joint urgent operational 

needs statements; and certification that policies, procedures, and 

guidance are in place to protect the integrity of social science researchers participating in HTS, including ethical guidelines and 

human studies research procedures. 

Section 345—Limitation on Obligation of Funds Pending 

Submission of Classified Justification Material 

This section would limit the obligation of operation and maintenance funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in budget 

activity 4, to not more than 90 percent until 15 days after the information cited in the classified annex accompanying this Act relating to the provision of classified justification material to Congress 

is provided to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 346—Limitation on Retirement of C–130 Aircraft From Air 

Force Inventory 

This section would prohibit retirement of any C–130 aircraft 

from the Air Force inventory until the Director of the Air National 

Guard, the Commander of Air Force Reserve Command, and the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force submit a written agreement to the 

Congressional defense committees describing the terms of the temporary transfer of C–130 aircraft from the reserve component to 

the active component. 

Section 347—Commercial Sale of Small Arms Ammunition in 

Excess of Military Requirements 

This section would require the Department of Defense to make 

available for commercial sale small arms ammunition and ammunition components. The section also would require the Secretary of 

Defense to issue guidance implementing this section within 90 days 

after date of enactment of this act. The Secretary shall submit a 

letter of compliance to the congressional defense committees within 

15 days of issuing the guidance. 

Section 348—Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force 

Structure Announcement Implementation 

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal 

year 2011 funds for the purpose of implementing the Air Force fiscal year 2011 Force Structure Announcement until 45 days after 

the Secretary of the Air Force provides the Senate Committee on 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
276 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a detailed report on the follow-on missions for bases affected by the 

2010 Combat Air Forces restructure and certifies that the Air Sovereignty Alert mission will be fully resourced with required funding,personnel, and aircraft. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 351—Expedited Processing of Background Investigations 

for Certain Individuals 

This section would amend section 1564, title 10, United States 

Code, which provides for the use of expedited procedures for completing background investigations for the granting of security clearances in certain circumstances. This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to use this authority to assist the transition to 

a civilian career for military personnel who have been retired or 

separated for a physical disability pursuant to chapter 61 of title 

10, United States Code. The committee notes that there is a strong 

demand by government agencies for individuals with high-level security clearances which few military personnel possess. Expediting 

security clearance processing would facilitate the hiring of individuals who have had their military careers cut short due to a physical disability. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, 

in prescribing the procedures to implement this authority, to determine whether spouses of these particular individuals also should be 

covered. 

Section 352—Adoption of Military Working Dogs by Family Members of Deceased or Seriously Wounded Members of the Armed 

Forces Who Were Handlers of the Dogs 

This section would amend section 2583(c) of title 10, United 

States Code, to allow an immediate family member of a military 

dog handler who was either killed in action, died of wounds received in action, or who received a medical discharge, to adopt the 

handler’s military working dog. 

Section 353—Revision to Authorities Relating to Transportation of 

Civilian Passengers and Commercial Cargoes by Department of 

Defense When Space Unavailable on Commercial Lines 

This section would amend section 2649 of title 10, United States 

Code, which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transport civilian passengers and commercial cargoes on vessels operated by the 

Department of Defense, when such transportation is not commercially available. This section would expand the means by which 

transportation may be provided to include vehicles and aircraft operated by the Department. In addition, when such transportation 

is provided in response to an emergency, disaster response, or humanitarian request, this section would credit any amounts received 

in reimbursement to the appropriation, fund, or account incurring 

the expense of providing the transportation. Furthermore, for a 

five-year period, this section would allow the transportation of allied personnel for purposes of responding to contingencies or disasters. This section also would require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit an annual report on the use of this authority to the Senate 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
277 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. To ensure uniformity in interpretation, section 2648 of 

title 10, United States Code, would be amended to clarify that 

transportation on vessels under that statute also would include vehicles and aircraft operated by the Department of Defense. 

Section 354—Technical Correction to Obsolete Reference Relating 

to Use of Flexible Hiring Authority To Facilitate Performance of 

Certain Department of Defense Functions by Civilian Employees 

This section would make a technical correction to section 2463 of 

title 10, United States Code, by striking an obsolete reference to 

the Department of Defense National Security Personnel System. 

Section 355—Inventory and Study of Budget Modeling and 

Simulation Tools 

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United 

States to perform an inventory of modeling and simulation tools 

used by the Department of Defense to develop and analyze the annual budget submission and to support decision making inside the 

budget process. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to contract with a federally funded research and development 

center to examine the requirements for, and capabilities of, modeling and simulation tools used by the Department of Defense to 

support the annual budget process. This study would leverage the 

inventory performed by the Comptroller General as the starting 

point for an examination of the efficacy and sufficiency of modeling 

and simulation tools used by the Department in support of the 

budget process. 

Section 356—Sense of Congress Regarding Continued Importance 

of High-Altitude Aviation Training Site, Colorado 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the HighAltitude Aviation Training Site in Gypsum, Colorado, is a critical 

element of Department of Defense aviation training activities, and 

that the Department of Defense should take all appropriate measures to prevent encroachment on the training site that would negatively impact training activities. 

Section 357—Department of Defense Study on Simulated Tactical 

Flight Training in a Sustained G Environment 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study on the effectiveness of simulated tactical training in a sustained g environment. The committee notes that the section is intended to evaluate the potential military applications of centrifuge 

motion platform simulators, which would enable pilots to experience g-forces associated with flight in an advanced flight simulator. 

Upon completion of the study, the Secretary would submit the results to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 358—Study of Effects of New Construction of Obstructions 

on Military Installations and Operations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to assess 

military installations and operations and determine areas that are 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
278 

vital to the national defense and training missions. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to designate a single 

organization to coordinate hazard determinations with the Secretary of Transportation. 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for proposing 

to increase the authorized end strength of the active duty Army to 

569,400 in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The committee believes this effort will continue to assist the Army with managing 

of the force, increasing readiness and dwell time for soldiers. The 

committee also recognizes the Secretary’s efforts to support an increase in the Air Force end strength in order to support its growth 

in Nuclear Enterprise, Irregular Warfare/Intelligence Surveillance 

and Reconnaissance, aircraft maintenance, acquisition, cyber warfare and medical fields, as well as the Navy’s additional manpower 

requirements for 4,400 personnel to fill individual augmentees assigned to overseas contingency operations to execute non-traditional Navy missions, such as provisional reconstruction teams, detainee operations, civil affairs training, counter IED and combat 

support functions. However, the committee remains concerned that 

these increases may not be sufficient to meet both the increased 

operational tempo and the increasing support requirements that 

are being generated by a nation that has been at war for over eight 

years. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2011: 

Service 

FY 2010 FY 2011 Change from 

Authorized Request 

Committee 

Recommenda- tion 

FY 2011 

Request 

FY 2010 

Authorized 

Army ...................................................................... 562,400 569,400 569,400 0 7,000 

Navy ....................................................................... 328,800 328,700 328,700 0 ¥100 

USMC ..................................................................... 202,100 202,100 202,100 0 0 

Air Force ................................................................ 331,700 332,200 332,200 0 500 

DOD ....................................................................... 1,425,000 1,432,400 1,432,400 0 7,400 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 

Minimum Levels 

This section would establish new minimum active duty end 

strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of 

September 30, 2011. The committee recommends 547,400 as the 

minimum active duty end strength for the Army, 324,300 as the 

minimum active duty end strength for the Navy, 202,100 as the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
279 

minimum active duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 

332,200 as the minimum active duty end strength for the Air 

Force. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves 

on active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2011: 

Service 

FY 2010 FY 2011 Change from 

Authorized Request 

Committee 

Recommenda- tion 

FY 2011 

Request 

FY 2010 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 358,200 358,200 358,200 0 0 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ......................................................... 65,500 65,500 65,500 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 106,700 106,700 106,700 0 0 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 69,500 71,200 71,200 0 1,700 

DOD Total ................................................. 844,500 846,200 846,200 0 1,700 

Coast Guard Reserve ............................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 

Support of the Reserves 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of September 30, 

2011: 

Service 

FY 2010 FY 2011 Change from 

Authorized Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2011 

Request 

FY 2010 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0 

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 10,818 10,688 10,688 0 ¥130 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 14,555 14,584 14,584 0 29 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 2,896 2,992 2,992 0 96 

DOD Total ................................................. 78,851 78,846 78,846 0 ¥5 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2011: 

Service 

FY 2010 FY 2011 Change from 

Authorized Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2011 

Request 

FY 2010 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 27,210 27,210 27,210 0 0 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 8,395 8,395 8,395 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 22,313 22,394 22,394 0 81 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 10,417 10,720 10,720 0 303 

DOD Total ................................................. 68,335 68,719 68,719 0 384 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
280 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2011 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual 

Status Technicians 

This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the 

reserve components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status 

technicians as of September 30, 2011: 

Service 

FY 2010 FY 2011 Change from 

Authorized Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2011 

Request 

FY 2010 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 1,600 2,520 2,520 0 920 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 595 595 595 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 350 350 350 0 0 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 90 90 90 0 0 

DOD Total ................................................. 2,635 3,555 3,555 0 920 

This section would establish limits for fiscal year 2011 on the 

number of non-dual status technicians authorized for the Army and 

Air Force Reserve Components. The Department of Defense request 

for fiscal year 2011 included an increase in the statutory limit on 

non-dual status technicians for the Army National Guard from 

1,600 to 2,520, a more than 55 percent increase. Further discussions with the Department informed the committee that the national guard believes the size of the Army’s required non-dual status technician force should be 5,000, a more than 300 percent increase over the current statutory limit. The rationale provided for 

such an increase was that more non-dual status technicians, who 

do not deploy, are needed at state headquarters in order to backfill 

dual-status technicians who frequently deploy, disrupting support 

to national guard units. The committee understands that some 

growth will be required in the number of non-dual status technicians in order for the Army and Air Force reserve components to 

sustain effective performance as an operational reserve. 

To better define the overall requirements, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days of enactment, that included an assessment on the requirements of the national guard for non-dual status technicians. 

The committee has yet to receive the report. Furthermore, the Department provided data to the committee indicating that the use of 

temporary wartime authority to waive all end strength limitations, 

as well as temporary hiring authority, had allowed the number of 

national guard non-dual status technicians in fiscal year 2010 to 

increase by nearly 2,200. Given the wartime authorities, as well as 

permanent temporary hiring authorities provided elsewhere in this 

Act, the committee would have preferred to receive and assess the 

required report from the Secretary of Defense before establishing 

a new statutory limit for national guard non-dual status technicians, but did not want to hinder the ability of states to meet continuing wartime requirements. The committee will continue to 

evaluate those requirements following receipt of the required report 

from the Secretary of Defense. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
281 

Section 415—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 

To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support 

This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of 

title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of reserve component personnel who may be on active duty or full-time national 

guard duty during fiscal year 2011 to provide operational support. 

The personnel authorized here do not count against the end 

strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412. 

Service 

FY 2010 FY 2011 Change from 

Authorized Request 

Committee 

Recommendation 

FY 2011 

Request 

FY 2010 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ................................................. 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize $138,540,700,000 to be appropriated 

for military personnel. This authorization of appropriations reflects 

both reductions and increases to the budget request for military 

personnel that are itemized below: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
282 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 337 here HR491.154
283 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues its efforts to provide flexibility to the 

Department of Defense to manage the total force using authorities 

that protect critical skills and enhance the quality of the force. For 

example, the committee has included a series of provisions that 

would provide new benefits and rights to reserve military civilian 

technicians. 

The committee also recognizes the selfless sacrifices that our 

military men and women and their families are making on behalf 

of the nation and has recommended the inclusion of provisions that 

would improve the overall well being and readiness of the force. 

For example, the committee has included provisions that would improve the management of warrant officers, enhance the responsiveness of the boards authorized to correct military records, and promote programs that assist military families. Additionally, the committee includes a provision that would modify the authority to conduct the Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts (MyCAA) 

to include a pilot program for comprehensive career development 

counseling for military spouses.The committee again recommends 

additional funding to help local educational agencies that are providing support to military children by including $65.0 million for 

local educational agencies that are heavily impacted by the attendance of military dependents, and continued funding for family assistance centers across the nation to support reserve families. The 

committee also encourages the recognition of the contributions of 

military spouses and children of members who are serving or have 

served in combat by including a provision that would authorize a 

lapel button to be worn by these family members. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Army Freedom Team Salute Program 

The committee is concerned about the Army’s decision to terminate the Freedom Team Salute program. Since its beginnings in 

2005, Freedom Team Salute has recognized and honored the services of more than 2.3 million parents, spouses, employers, supporters, and Army veterans. Freedom Team Salute commemorates 

the service of our veterans and loved ones through an inexpensive 

commendation package that includes an official Army Lapel Pin, an 

Army decal, a certificate of appreciation and letter of thanks signed 

by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff, Army. 

The committee understands that there is no other program that 

supports veterans in the same way as the Freedom Team Salute 

program, which the committee believes is a valuable and enriching 

effort in support of Army veterans. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review funding options for reinstating the Freedom Team Salute program and to report the findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 

2011. The committee recommends that if the program is reinstated, 

the Army monitor the cost and efficiency of the program to ensure 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
284 

that it is funded in a responsible manner and that it achieves its 

intended results in a cost effective manner. 

Award of Prisoner-of-War Medal to Service Members Held at 

Wauwilermoos, Switzerland 

Section 1128 of title 10, United States Code, requires the secretary concerned to issue a prisoner-of-war medal to any service 

member taken prisoner and held captive under four broad conditions, including by foreign armed forces that are hostile to the 

United States, under comparable circumstances to those under 

which persons have generally been held captive by enemy armed 

forces. 

The committee understands that during World War II, airmen 

forced to make emergency landings in the neutral Swiss Confederation were interned under generous circumstances, some in hotels, and given strict instructions not to attempt to escape so that 

Switzerland could maintain its neutrality. Some service members 

who attempted to escape were transferred to Wauwilermoos, a facility in which, as documentation has indicated, internees were 

held under extremely inhumane conditions. The committee also understands that two service members have been awarded the prisoner-of-war medal for their internment at Wauwilermoos. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the rationale for awarding the prisoner-of-war medal to some 

Wauwilermoos internees and not to others, and to provide a written summary of the review and its conclusions to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2011. 

The committee directs the Secretary to award the prisoner-of-war 

medal to those Wauwilermoos internees, who upon review, the Secretary determines to be entitled to the award. 

Committee’s Concerns With the DOD Report on Child Custody and 

Database To Track the Number of Cases Involving Child Custody 

Disputes of Members of the Armed Forces 

The committee received from the Department of Defense a report 

to Congress on child custody litigation involving service members 

of the armed forces required by section 572 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–288). The 

report was to include an evaluation ‘‘on all known reported cases 

since September 2003 involving child custody disputes in which the 

service of a member of the Armed Forces was an issue in the custody dispute’’ as well as address a number of issues; to include a 

statement of the total number of cases in which members of the 

Armed Forces have lost custody of a child as a result of deployment, and the litigation history of all available reported cases involving child custody disputes. The committee is concerned the Department limited the scope of the report to cases where military 

service was the sole factor in determining custody instead of cases 

where it was an issue in the custody dispute. 

The committee is aware that during a hearing held by the House 

Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity in February 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) witness testified 

that the department had to ‘‘resort to anecdotal data’’ in the course 

of preparing the report mandated by the National Defense AuthorVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
285 

ization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The report discusses the challenges faced with gathering data through available case law research tools and the limited information to conduct detailed research required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. From this, the committee concludes that there is not 

sufficient data available to ascertain the full scope of how many 

members of the Armed Forces experience the loss of child custody 

as a result of their service. Although the committee is encouraged 

with the Department’s efforts to encourage states to change their 

laws to better support service members and its efforts to better 

educate service members who may have potential child custody 

issues; the committee continues to support the need for Congressional legislation to provide maximum protection for our service 

members and their children, who, while deployed, remain at risk 

of having that deployment used against them to determine or 

change child custody arrangements. 

The committee also remains concerned about the absence of a 

database on which to assess the impact of deployments on child 

custody arrangements and the adequacy of family care plans; but 

is encouraged by the data call the department has begun to better 

assess the scope of the issue. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain a database to track 

the number of cases involving child custody disputes of a member 

of the Armed Forces, and directs the Secretary of Defense to report 

on the outcome of the data call referenced in the report to congress 

on Child Custody Litigation involving service members of the 

Armed Forces, to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the Committee on Armed Services of the House. 

Fit, But Unsuitable Separations 

The committee is concerned that it is still possible that a service 

member could be found fit for continued service by a Physical Evaluation Board, but subsequently be deemed unsuitable for continued 

service due to the same medical condition that prompted the medical evaluation. The committee views this action as fundamentally 

unfair and inconsistent with the disability evaluation system reforms that have been enacted in recent years. The committee is 

aware that the military departments are considering changes to 

this practice, but there is no evidence that a decision has been 

made to implement a standardized policy within the Department of 

Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee directs Secretary of Defense to examine the use of and justification for the ‘‘fit, but unsuitable’’ separation process within the military departments and to report the 

findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 

2011. 

Military Leave for Training 

The committee is concerned that the number of military leave 

days afforded to reserve component members under section 

6323(a)(1) of Title 5 United States Code may not be sufficient to 

accomplish the required training as the reserve component transitions to an operational reserve. Current law authorizes 15 days per 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
286 

fiscal year for active duty, inactive-duty training, funeral honors or 

engaging in field training. This was sufficient under the former 

paradigm of training on one weekend a month and two weeks during the summer. Reserve component members now are required to 

conduct more training to increase readiness for deployment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to review 

the impact and feasibility of increasing the number of military 

leave days authorized under section 6323(a)(1) of Title 5 United 

States Code and report on the outcome of the review to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by April 1, 2011. 

Report on Medal of Honor Award Process 

The committee remains concerned with the minimal amount of 

Medal of Honors awarded for acts of gallantry during Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, especially the 

lack of living recipients. The committee believes it is important to 

have living Medal of Honor recipients from current conflicts to inspire our nation, while honoring those men and women who have 

dedicated themselves to the defense of our country. The committee 

notes that the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 directed the Secretary of Defense to review the current trends in 

awarding the Medal of Honor to identify whether there is an inadvertent subjective bias amongst commanders that has contributed 

to the low numbers of awards of the Medal of Honor. In addition, 

the Secretary of Defense was directed to survey military leaders, 

both officers and noncommissioned officers, to the lowest level of 

command to determine if there is a trend of downgrading awards 

taking place for medals related to acts of valor and gallantry. The 

committee notes that the Department of Defense informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by letter that the report would not arrive by the 

March 31, 2010, deadline. The committee acknowledges that the 

Department indicated that the report will be submitted by July 31, 

2010, and encourages the Secretary of Defense to complete its review and report its findings on the Medal of Honor as expeditiously 

as possible. 

Retention of Military Technicians Who Lose Dual Status in the 

Selected Reserve Due to Combat-Related Disability 

The committee commends the National Guard Bureau for its implementation of section 511 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), which provides the 

authority enabling military technicians (dual status) to continue to 

be employed as technicians when the loss of their military membership in the Selected Reserve is the result of a combat-related disability. However, the committee is concerned that the Department 

of Defense has not issued guidance to ensure the reserve component is implementing the statute uniformly. The committee urges 

the Department to issue instructions to the reserve components. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
287 

Review of Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients From World 

War I 

The committee notes that section 552 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107), required the Secretary of each military department to review, among 

others, the service records of each Hispanic American war veteran 

who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, 

or the Air Force Cross before the date of the enactment of that Act, 

to determine whether that veteran should be awarded the Medal 

of Honor. The committee understands that the review occurred for 

Hispanic American service cross recipients from World War II and 

later periods based on the conference report (H. Rept. 107–333) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2002. 

The committee believes that the statutory authority to conduct a 

review for Hispanic American service cross recipients to those from 

World War I exists in the underlying law, and directs the Secretary 

of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the 

Air Force to expand their reviews of Hispanic American service 

cross recipients to those awarded from January 2, 1918, to December 6, 1941. The committee directs the secretaries to provide written notification of compliance to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Review of the House Committee on Armed Services Report on 

Professional Military Education 

The committee desires the views of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’, and the uniformed chiefs of 

the military services on the April 2010 Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigation’s unanimous and bipartisan report ‘‘Another 

Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades After the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel.’’ 

This report examined officer in-residence professional military 

education (PME) as a critical investment in the most important element of our military, people. The report concluded that the United 

States cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to producing 

leaders capable of meeting significant challenges, whether at the 

tactical, operational, or strategic levels of warfare, and that as a 

matter of national security, the country’s continuing investment in 

the PME system must be wisely made. The report further found 

that today’s PME system is basically sound; there are areas, however, that need improvement. 

The committee intends to work with the Department of Defense 

and the military services on PME on a continuing basis. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the uniformed chiefs of the military 

services to review the House Committee on Armed Services’ report 

on professional military education and provide their individual 

views on the report’s findings and recommendations to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by September 30, 2010. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
288 

Transferability of Individualized Education Programs 

The committee notes that military families face frequent moves 

when the parent in the uniformed services is assigned to a new 

duty location. These frequent moves create additional challenges 

for children with special needs to receive the care they need. The 

committee encourages local educational agencies to recognize and, 

to the extent practicable, adhere to the individualized education 

program that was previously developed for these children. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY GENERALLY

Section 501—Age for Health Care Professional Appointments and 

Mandatory Retirements 

This section would authorize medical providers being considered 

for regular appointments to be exempted from the requirement that 

they be commissioned prior to age 42 so that they may be retired 

with 20 years of service by age 62. This section would also expand 

the category of officers below the grade of brigadier general, or rear 

admiral (lower half) in the Navy, who are exempt from the requirement to retire upon reaching age 62 to include not only physicians, 

dentists and nurses, but also other medical providers if they are 

providing health care, performing clinical duties, or performing 

health care-related administrative duties. 

Section 502—Authority for Appointment of Warrant Officers in the 

Grade of W–1 by Commission and Standardization of Warrant 

Officer Appointing Authority 

This section would clarify that appointments in the regular grade 

of W–1, the secretary of a military department may provide by regulation that appointments be made by commission and that the 

President shall make such appointments within the military departments. This section would also specify that appointments in 

permanent reserve warrant officer grades would be made in the 

same manner as prescribed for regular warrant officer grades. 

Section 503—Nondisclosure of Information From Discussions, 

Deliberations, Notes, and Records of Special Selection Boards 

This section would clarify that proceedings of special selection 

boards convened by the secretary of the military department concerned to consider the promotion of active-duty list or reserve active-status list officers may not be disclosed to any person not a 

member of the board, except as authorized or required to process 

the report of the board. 

Section 504—Administrative Removal of Officers From List of 

Officers Recommended for Promotion 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to administratively remove an officer from a promotion list if the officer is discharged or dropped from the rolls, transferred to retired status, or 

found to have been erroneously included in a zone of consideration. 

This section would apply the same standards to officers serving on 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
289 

the active-duty list and reserve officers serving on the active-status 

list. 

Section 505—Eligibility of Officers To Serve on Boards of Inquiry 

for Separation of Regular Officers for Substandard Performance 

and Other Reasons 

This section would amend sections 1187 (active duty) and 14906 

(reserves) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the pool of officers eligible to serve on officer discharge boards. This section would 

require all board members to be senior in rank or grade to the officer being considered for separation who is referred to as the respondent. For respondents below the grade of major or lieutenant 

commander, the board president would have to be in or above the 

grade of major or lieutenant commander. For respondents in or 

above the grade of major or lieutenant commander, the board president would have to be above the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander. Current law requires that all board members, regardless 

of the respondent’s grade, must be in a grade above major or lieutenant commander, with the board president being above the grade 

of lieutenant colonel or commander. 

Section 506—Temporary Authority To Reduce Minimum Length of 

Active Service as a Commissioned Officer Required for Voluntary 

Retirement as an Officer 

This section would amend sections 3911(b), 6323(a)(2), and 

8911(b) of title 10, United States Code, to provide the secretaries 

of the military departments renewed authority to approve the voluntary retirement at 20 years of service for officers with 8 years 

commissioned service instead of 10 years, beginning on the date of 

the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2013. 

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT MANAGEMENT

Section 511—Preseparation Counseling for Members of the Reserve 

Components 

This section would amend section 1142 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require individual preseparation counseling already available for service members whose discharge from active duty is anticipated as of a specific date be made available to members of the 

reserve component. 

Section 512—Military Correction Board Remedies for National 

Guard Members 

This section would clarify the policy for members serving in a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the secretary concerned, 

to include members of the national guard, fall within the jurisdiction of the board operated by the secretary to correct military 

records and should benefit from the decision of the board. 

Section 513—Removal of Statutory Distribution Limits on Navy 

Reserve Flag Officer Allocation 

This section would amend section 12004 of title 10, United States 

Code, by removing the statutory distribution limits for Navy ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:00 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
290 

serve flag officers and would allow for flexible management as currently afforded to the other military services. 

Section 514—Assignment of Air Force Reserve Military Technicians 

(Dual Status) to Positions Outside Air Force Reserve Unit Program 

This section would amend section 10216(d) of title 10, United 

States Code, authorizing the assignment of Air Force Reserve military technicians (dual status) outside of a unit program. This section would also limit the number allowed for assignment outside of 

a unit program to no more than 50 at the same time. 

Section 515—Temporary Authority for Temporary Employment of 

Non-Dual Status Military Technicians 

This section would amend section 10217 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of 

the Air Force to employ, on a temporary basis, a non-dual status 

technician to fill a vacancy created by the mobilization of a military 

technician (dual status) who occupies a position under section 

10216 of title 10, United States Code. The duration of temporary 

employment would not exceed the length of the mobilization period 

of the military technician (dual status) or two years, whichever is 

shorter. The authority to hire a person under this section would expire two years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 516—Revised Structure and Functions of Reserve Forces 

Policy Board 

This section would amend section 10301 of title 10, United States 

Code, to revise the membership and operating framework of the 

Reserve Forces Policy Board so that it might provide independent 

advice and recommendations directly to the Secretary of Defense on 

matters affecting the reserve components. This section would reduce the membership of the board from 24 members to 20 members, 18 of whom would be voting members. This section would also 

require a senior enlisted member from one of the reserve components to serve on the board as a non-voting member to be an adviser on enlisted matters to the board chairman. 

Section 517—Merit Systems Protection Board and Judicial 

Remedies for National Guard Technicians 

Section 7701, title 5, United States Code, outlines procedures for 

federal civilian employees to appeal personnel grievances to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, under section 

709 of title 32, United States Code, appeals of adverse personnel 

actions by national guard technicians may not be made beyond the 

adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned. This section would 

extend the right to file MSPB appeals to national guard technicians. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
291 

SUBTITLE C—JOINT QUALIFIED OFFICERS AND REQUIREMENTS

Section 521—Technical Revisions to Definition of Joint Matters for 

Purposes of Joint Officer Management 

This section would amend section 668 of title 10, United States 

Code, to clarify the definition of ‘‘joint matters.’’ This technical 

change reverts to the original Goldwater-Nichols terminology ‘‘integrated military forces’’ vice the current term ‘‘multiple military 

forces’’ in the joint matters definition. This section would emphasize that joint matters is about integration of forces throughout the 

planning and operations process. This section would also amend 

(a)(1) to provide clarity to the definition of joint matters to reflect 

that an officer only has to participate in any one joint activity to 

be considered participating in joint matters. 

The change to subsection (a)(2) would allow for joint credit when 

military forces are integrated throughout planning and operations 

together or when one or multiple military forces operate with U.S. 

departments and agencies, military forces from other countries, or 

non-governmental persons or entities. As currently written, an officer involved in operations with other U.S. armed forces still needs 

to work with an agent from one of the organizations in subsection 

(a)(2)(A)–(C) to qualify for joint credit. 

Section 522—Changes to the Process Involving Promotion Boards 

for Joint Qualified Officers and Officers With Joint Staff Experience 

This section would amend section 612 of title 10, United States 

Code, to comport with the standard in section 619a of title 10, 

United States Code, which allows the Secretary of Defense to waive 

joint qualified officer (JQO) requirements for officers in the science 

and technology (S&T) field and professional officers. These S&T 

and professional officers may now be designated as JQO’s through 

the experience path. 

This section would also amend sections 615 and 618 of title 10, 

United States Code, to comport with changes to section 662 of title 

10, United States Code, enacted by the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110– 

417). This section would update promotion board requirements for 

joint information and after action reports to match the new joint 

promotion objectives. 

SUBTITLE D—GENERAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES

Section 531—Extension of Temporary Authority To Order Retired 

Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty in High-Demand, 

Low-Density Assignments 

This section would extend the authorities in section 688a(f) of 

title 10, United States Code, from December 31, 2010, to December 

31, 2012. This section would also require the Secretary of the Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, by April 1, 2011, 

containing an assessment of the need to extend the authority beyond December 31, 2012, and a plan, if appropriate, to eliminate 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
292 

the use of recalled retirees and, instead, to increase active duty 

manpower to meet future high demand, low-density requirements. 

Section 532—Correction of Military Records 

This section would require boards for the correction of military 

records, discharge review boards, and disability retirement and 

separation review boards operated under the jurisdiction of the secretaries of the military departments to ensure that the documents 

announcing decisions of the boards convey the findings and conclusions of the board in an itemized and orderly fashion with specific 

attention to each issue presented by the member in regard to that 

member’s case. This section would also require that disability retirement and separation review boards be made available to enlisted members as well as officers. The section would also extend 

from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2013, the personnel limitation that the manpower levels within the service review agencies 

of the military departments shall not be reduced below the manpower levels that existed on January 1, 2002, unless the secretary 

of the military department reports the scope and purpose of the reduction and a 90-day period elapses. 

Section 533—Modification of Certificate of Release or Discharge 

From Active Duty (DD Form 214) To Specifically Identify a Space 

for Inclusion of Email Address 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to modify the 

DD Form 214, Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active 

Duty, to include a specific field on the form in which a service 

member may include his or her email address. 

Section 534—Recognition of Role of Female Members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense Review of Military Occupational Specialties Available to Female Members 

This section is a sense of Congress that honors women who have 

served, and women who are currently serving, as members of the 

armed forces and encourages people in the United States to recognize the service and achievements of female members of the armed 

forces and female veterans. It would also require the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct a review of military occupational positions 

available to female members and the collocation policy and other 

policies and regulations to determine whether changes are needed, 

including legislative change, if necessary, to enhance the ability of 

women to serve in the armed forces. 

SUBTITLE E—MILITARY JUSTICE AND LEGAL MATTERS

Section 541—Continuation of Warrant Officers on Active Duty To 

Complete Disciplinary Action 

This section would authorize the secretary of the military department concerned to continue a warrant officer on active duty and 

delay a pending separation or retirement without prejudice until 

any action to consider trying the member by court-martial has been 

completed. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
293 

Section 542—Enhanced Authority To Punish Contempt in Military 

Justice Proceedings 

This section would amend article 48 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by expanding the authority by which a military judge 

may punish contempt in military proceedings. 

Section 543—Limitations on Use in Personnel Action of Information Contained in Criminal Investigative Report or in the Index 

Maintained for Law Enforcement Retrieval and Analysis 

This section would prohibit the use of information related to the 

titling or indexing of a member of the armed forces contained in 

any Department of Defense criminal investigative report in connection with any personnel action involving the member. This section 

would provide exceptions to the prohibition in connection with law 

enforcement activities; in a judicial or administrative action involving an alleged offense referenced in the criminal investigative report or index; or in a personnel action if the member has been adjudged guilty of the alleged offense as the result of a military nonjudicial or judicial action; or as a result of a civilian judicial proceeding, and the record of the proceedings is presented in connection with the personnel action; and the member has the opportunity to present additional information in response to the record 

of the proceedings. 

Section 544—Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces Deployed in Support 

of a Contingency Operation 

This section would amend title 2 of the Service Members Civil 

Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 535a) by preventing a court from permanently altering a custody order while a service member is deployed, 

unless evidence shows a temporary order is in the best interest of 

the child. This section would also require the pre-deployment order 

to be reinstated when a service member returns from deployment, 

unless evidence shows reinstatement is not in the best interest of 

the child, and prohibits courts from using deployment or the possibility of deployment against a service member when determining 

the best interest of a child. 

Section 545—Improvements to Department of Defense Domestic 

Violence Programs 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement 

recommendations contained in the report of the Comptroller General of the United States titled ‘‘Status of Implementation of GAO’s 

2006 Recommendations on the Department of Defense’s Domestic 

Violence Program’’ (GAO–10–577R). 

Section 546—Public Release of Restricted Annex of Department of 

Defense Report of the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood 

Pertaining to Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator of the Attack 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to release 

publicly the restricted annex of the Department of Defense Report 

of the Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, dated January 

2010. This section would also exempt parts of the restricted annex 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
294 

from public release, except: if the Secretary determines that if disclosed the materials may imperil any criminal investigation or 

prosecution related to the attack; and in accordance with section 

1102 of title 10, United States Code, the memorandum summarizing the results of the medical quality assurance records relating 

to the care provided patients by the alleged perpetrator of the attack. 

SUBTITLE F—MEMBER EDUCATION AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

AND ADMINISTRATION

Section 551—Repayment of Education Loan Repayment Benefits 

This section would amend sections 2171 and 16301 of title 10, 

United States Code, conforming payments made under those sections to the same repayment provisions currently in place for other 

bonus and incentive programs under section 303a of title 37, 

United States Code. This section would allow the secretary concerned to disburse a final education loan repayment with the settlement of service member’s final military pay account when that 

service member is killed or seriously injured in the line of duty. 

Section 552—Active Duty Obligation for Graduates of the Military 

Service Academies Participating in the Armed Forces Health 

Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program 

This section would require graduates of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United 

States Air Force Academy to serve the full period of the active duty 

service obligation associated with their military academy attendance notwithstanding that their participation in the Health Professions Scholarship Program requires them to resign their regular 

commission and serve as a reserve officer. 

Section 553—Waiver of Maximum Age Limitation on Admission to 

Service Academies for Certain Enlisted Members Who Served 

During Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom 

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to waive the maximum age limitation for admission to a military service academy from 23 to 26 for an otherwise qualified enlisted member of the armed forces who was prevented from being 

admitted to the academy before the member reached the maximum 

age as a result of service in the theaters of operation for Operation 

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 554—Report of Feasibility and Cost of Expanding Enrollment Authority of Community College of the Air Force To Include Additional Members of the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to report to Congress within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act the feasibility 

and the cost of expanding eligibility for enrollment in Community 

College of the Air Force to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and 

Coast Guard. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
295 

SUBTITLE G—DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

Section 561—Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 

Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees 

This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to local 

educational agencies that have military dependent students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in average daily attendance during a year. This section would also provide $15.0 million 

for assistance to local educational agencies that experience significant increases and decreases in the average daily attendance of 

military dependent students due to the military force structure 

changes, the relocation of military forces from one base to another, 

and from Base Closures and Realignments. The committee recommendation continues its effort to ensure that local school districts with significant concentration of military students continue 

to receive the support necessary to provide for military families and 

their dependents. 

Section 562—Enrollment of Dependents of Members of the Armed 

Forces Who Reside in Temporary Housing in Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools 

This section would amend section 2164 of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the discretion to prescribe regulations that would permit certain dependents who reside 

in temporary housing in lieu of permanent living quarters on a 

military installation the ability to attend Department of Defense 

domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools. 

SUBTITLE H—DECORATIONS, AWARDS, AND COMMEMORATIONS

Section 571—Notification Requirement for Determination Made in 

Response to Review of Proposal for Award of a Medal of Honor 

Not Previously Submitted in Timely Fashion 

This section would amend section 1130 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to submit the discussion 

and rationale regarding favorable recommendations to award the 

Medal of Honor to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the 

House Committee on Armed Services, and the Member of Congress 

requesting the review. 

Section 572—Department of Defense Recognition of Spouses of 

Members of the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to design, 

commercially license to manufacture, and sell a spouse-combat-veteran lapel button to recognize the contributions to national defense 

and the personal sacrifices made by the spouses of combat veterans. This section would also express the sense of Congress that 

the Secretary of Defense should widely announce the availability of 

the lapel button and should encourage commanders to conduct 

ceremonies recognizing the support provided by spouses of military 

members where service members can present these lapel buttons to 

their family members. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
296 

Section 573—Department of Defense Recognition of Children of 

Members of the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to design, 

commercially license to manufacture, and sell a children of military 

service members commemorative lapel button to recognize the contributions to national defense and the personal sacrifices made by 

the children of military veterans. This section would also express 

the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should widely 

announce the availability of the lapel buttons and should encourage commanders to conduct ceremonies recognizing the support 

provided by children of military members where service members 

can present these lapel buttons to their family members. 

Section 574—Clarification of Persons Eligible for Award of Bronze 

Star Medal 

This section would clarify section 1133 of title 10, United States 

Code, to restrict award of the Bronze Star medal to only those 

members of a military force who were: (1) serving in a geographic 

area in which hostile fire/imminent danger pay or hazardous duty 

pay was authorized at the time events occurred for which the 

medal would be awarded; or (2) in receipt of hostile fire/imminent 

danger pay or hazardous duty pay as a result of the events for 

which the medal would be awarded. 

Section 575—Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans Who 

Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation 

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to award the Vietnam Service Medal to veterans as a substitute for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal that had been 

awarded for participation in the operation to rescue the SS Mayaguez during the period May 12 through May 15, 1975. 

Section 576—Authorization for Award of Medal of Honor to Certain 

Members of the Army for Acts of Valor During the Civil War, Korean War, or Vietnam War 

This section would waive the statutory time limitation under section 3744 of title 10, United States Code and authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to: (1) Alonzo H. Cushing, who 

served in the United States Army during the Civil War; (2) John 

A. Sipe, who served in the United States Army during the Civil 

War; (3) Chaplain Emil J. Kapaun, who served in the United 

States Army during the Korean war; and (4) Robert L. Towles, who 

served in the United States Army during the Vietnam war. 

Section 577—Authorization and Request for Award of Distinguished-Service Cross to Jay C. Copley for Acts of Valor During 

the Vietnam War 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to award 

the Distinguished-Service Cross to Jay C. Copley, who served in 

the United States Army during the Vietnam war. This section 

would waive the statutory time limitation under section 3744 of 

title 10, United States Code. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
297 

Section 578—Program To Commemorate 60th Anniversary of the 

Korean War 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish and conduct a program to commemorate the 60th anniversary 

of the Korean war and to coordinate and support the Korean war 

commemorative programs and activities of the federal government, 

state and local governments, and other persons and organizations 

that support the commemorative objectives specified in this section. 

SUBTITLE I—MILITARY FAMILY READINESS MATTERS

Section 581—Appointment of Additional Member of Department of 

Defense Military Family Readiness Council 

This section would expand the membership of the Department of 

Defense Military Family Readiness Council to include a spouse of 

a general or flag officer, and clarifies the appointment options for 

the enlisted representation. 

Section 582—Director of the Office of Community Support for 

Military Families With Special Needs 

This section would make a technical clarification to section 

1781(c) of title 10, United States Code, as enacted by section 563 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84). 

Section 583—Pilot Program of Personalized Career Development 

Counseling for Military Spouses 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a pilot program designed to provide career development counseling 

to, between 75 and 150, spouses of active duty service members, 

under the spouse tuition assistance authority in section 1784a of 

title 10, United States Code. The pilot program would include the 

development of strategies, step-by-step guidelines, and 

customizable milestones to: (1) promote comprehensive, introspective review of personal skills, experience, goals, and requirements 

with a view to developing a personalized plan for career development; (2) identify career options that are portable, personally rewarding, and compatible with personal strengths, skills, and experience; (3) instruct and encourage the use of sound personal and 

professional management practices; and (4) plan career attainment 

progression objectives and measure progress. 

This section would require the Secretary to make available at 

least one career counselor in each of the three geographic areas required by the pilot program. This section would also require the 

Secretary to consider methods to incentivize careers in critical civilian specialties needed in the Department of Defense, such as mental health, social work, and family welfare among others. 

Section 584—Modification of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 

This section would amend section 582 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) by 

authorizing service and state based programs to provide access to 

service members and their families of all components. This section 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
298 

would also require a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the 

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, and provide information on 

employment opportunities during the post-deployment reconstitution phase. This section would also include resiliency training programs to the outreach services provided under the Yellow Ribbon 

Reintegration Program. 

Section 585—Importance of Office of Community Support for 

Military Families With Special Needs 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Office 

of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs is 

the best structure to determine what medical, educational, and 

other support services are required by military families with children who have a medical or educational special need and to ensure 

that those services are made available to those families. This section would also require that the Secretary of Defense allocate a 

separate line of funding to the Office of Community Support for 

Military Families with Special Needs, effective with the Program 

Objective Memorandum to be issued for fiscal year 2012. 

Section 586—Comptroller General Report on Department of Defense Office of Community Support for Military Families With 

Special Needs 

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

on the progress made in implementing the Office of Community 

Support for Military Families with Special Needs. 

Section 587—Comptroller General Report on Exceptional Family 

Member Program 

This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct an assessment of the Exception Family Member 

Program of the Department of Defense and to report the findings 

of the assessment to the congressional defense committees within 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 588—Comptroller General Review of Department of 

Defense Military Spouse Employment Programs 

This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review all Department of Defense spouse employment 

programs, and to report the findings of the review, including any 

recommendations for improving such programs, to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011. 

Section 589—Report on Department of Defense Military Spouse 

Education Programs 

This section requires the Secretary of Defense to review all Department of Defense education programs designed to support 

spouses of members of the armed forces. The Secretary is required 

to report the findings of the review, including any recommendations for improving such programs, to the congressional defense 

committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
299 

SUBTITLE J—OTHER MATTERS

Section 591—Establishment of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps Units for Students in Grades Above Sixth Grade 

This section would amend section 2031 of title 10, United Sates 

Code, to allow the establishment of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) units at public and private secondary educational institutions that permit enrollment of students in the 

corps who are in a grade above the sixth grade. Any unit established under this authority must meet similar requirements of the 

JROTC program, and the service secretary who establishes a program under this authority must conduct a review of the program, 

and report on the impacts, if any, the program may have on the 

operations of JROTC in secondary educational institutions. 

Section 592—Increase in Number of Private Sector Civilians 

Authorized for Admission to National Defense University 

This section would authorize the change in the number of private 

sector civilians authorized for admission to the professional military education program at the National Defense University from 20 

to 35. 

Section 593—Admission of Defense Industry Civilians To Attend 

United States Air Force Institute of Technology 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

permit defense industry employees to receive instruction at the 

United States Air Force Institute of Technology. This section limits 

enrollment to 125 defense industry employees at any one time, on 

a space available basis, and requires the students be charged tuition for enrollment. 

Section 594—Date for Submission of Annual Report on Department 

of Defense STARBASE Program 

This section would amend section 2193b of title 10, United States 

Code, to extend the annual STARBASE program report deadline 

from 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, to March 31st of 

each year. 

Section 595—Extension of Deadline for Submission of Final Report 

of Military Leadership Diversity Commission 

This section would extend the period authorized for the Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission for completing deliberations before submitting its final report from 12 months to 18 months. 

Section 596—Enhanced Authority for Members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense and Coast Guard Civilian 

Employees and Their Families To Accept Gifts From Non-Federal 

Entities 

This section would amend chapter 155 of title 10, United States 

Code, by incorporating an expanded version of section 8127 included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 

(Public Law 109–148). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
300 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations authorizing eligible members of the armed forces, eligible 

civilians, their families and survivors, to accept gifts from nonprofit 

organizations, private parties, and other sources outside the Department of Defense. Eligible service members and civilians include 

those who incurred an injury or illness: as a direct result of armed 

conflict; while engaged in hazardous service; in the performance of 

duty under conditions simulating war; through an instrumentality 

of war; in an operation or area designated as a combat operation 

or combat zone by the Secretary of Defense; or under other circumstances determined by the Secretary to warrant similar treatment. This section would prohibit the acceptance of gifts from foreign governments, international organizations, or their agents. This 

section would also repeal section 8127 of Public Law 109–148. 

Section 597—Report on Performance and Improvements of 

Transition Assistance Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to prepare a report on the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). This section would require that the 

report include: an analysis of the rates of post-separation employment rates compared to the general population; a summary of the 

evolution and development of TAP; a description of efforts to transform the TAP model from an end-of-service transition model to a 

life-cycle model; an analysis of current and future challenges separating members face when entering the civilian workforce, including surveys; and recommendations, including legislative recommendations, that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate 

to improve TAP. The report would be required to be submitted 

within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 598—Sense of Congress Regarding Assisting Members of 

the Armed Forces To Participate in Apprenticeship Programs 

This section would express the sense of Congress that commanders of units of the armed forces should make every effort to 

permit members of the armed forces who are assigned to the unit, 

but who are in the process of being separated or released from active duty, to participate in an apprenticeship program that is registered under the National Apprenticeship Act (29 U.S.C. 50 et 

seq.). 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible compensation programs are central to maintaining a high quality, combat ready force in the ninth year of war. Accordingly, the committee recommends an across-the-board pay raise of 1.9 percent, 

one-half of one percent above pay raise levels in the private sector 

as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). This would be 

the 12th consecutive year that the pay raise would exceed the ECI 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
301 

level and would result in an average cumulative pay increase of 60 

percent over the last 12 years. 

The committee recognizes that compensation of service members 

while serving in a combat zone has been eroded by inflation since 

the beginning of combat operations in the Republic of Iraq. Accordingly, the committee recommends increases to hostile fire pay. 

The committee believes that more needs to be done to benefit 

military families. For example, the committee includes provisions 

that would authorize an increase in the family separation allowance and expansion of basic allowance for housing policy to include 

payment to both members of a dual-military family when one member is assigned to sea duty. 

The committee notes that the benefits provided to wounded warriors and their loved ones needs to be further updated. The committee recommends a new payment to severely disabled service 

members to facilitate the employment of caregivers required by the 

service member, to include movement of household goods, if necessary. The committee also included a pilot program that would examine the effect of longer officer careers on the ability of the services to provide for the education and career broadening assignments that are critical to the development of well-rounded military 

leaders. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Career Retention Bonus 

The committee is concerned that service members are not being 

provided appropriate counseling and information before they decline or accept the $30,000 career retention bonus upon reaching 15 

years of service. Acceptance of the bonus requires service members 

to participate in a retirement program that offers reduced benefits 

that could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in 

benefits over the lifetime of the service member. The committee understands that the Center for Naval Analysis has devoted considerable research into this matter and would be positioned to provide 

valuable information on what can be done to ensure that service 

members receive the information necessary to make well informed 

decisions about the career retention bonus. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to initiate an education program to 

improve the counseling and information provided to service members before they make a decision about the career retention bonus. 

Critical Language and Cultural Training of Special Operations 

Forces 

United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) deploys 

personnel to over 70 countries around the world and in every geographic combatant command. Personnel assigned to USSOCOM 

carry out unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, civil affairs operations, and security force assistance; all of which require 

deep language and culture expertise. Among the many skills required to carry out their missions is the ability to personally interact and collaborate with indigenous populations. Often in isolated 

locations, these missions succeed or fail based upon the operator’s 

knowledge of the population’s cultural sensitivities. The committee 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
302 

is aware that United States Special Operations Forces (USSOF) 

that require language skills are initially trained to the Department’s 1/1 proficiency standard; however, the committee is concerned there is no mechanism in place, across all the services, to 

ensure this standard is maintained on a regular basis. Furthermore, the services do not consistently provide USSOF personnel 

Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) for sustaining a 1/1 or 

1/+ standard, potentially contributing to the attrition of language 

skills. 

While the committee understands that the services provide its respective USSOF personnel FLPP once they reach the much more 

developed 2/2 certification, the committee encourages the services 

to provide FLPP to USSOF personnel at the 1/1 and 1/+ level. 

The committee understands that in order to educate its personnel regarding cultural sensitivities, USSOCOM provides advanced cultural immersion training and recruits first-generation individuals with particular cultural backgrounds. The committee also 

recognizes USSOCOM’s use of the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest program and the Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands program to fill its ranks with culturally astute personnel; however, the 

committee is aware that there are obstacles to USSOCOM’s full 

utilization of these programs. The committee directs the Commander, USSOCOM to provide a briefing, by September 1, 2010, to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on USSOCOM’s objectives, strategies, 

and challenges regarding cultural immersion programs. 

Local Procurement of Fresh Meat, Poultry, Seafood, Fish, and 

Produce by Commissary and Exchange Stores 

The committee believes more can be done to purchase fresh 

meat, poultry, seafood, fish, and produce from local markets within 

150 miles of commissary and exchange stores. The committee recognizes the benefits of the ‘‘Green the Capitol’’ initiative and believes such a program at commissaries and exchanges at military 

installations may prove beneficial and environmentally responsible. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

assess how the Defense Commissary Agency and the exchange 

services procure fresh meat, poultry, seafood, fish, and produce for 

resale. This section should: calculate an estimate of the percentage 

of those goods raised, produced, or caught within 150 miles of the 

resale stores; determine if those methods of procurement can be 

changed to increase local procurement rates; determine the fiscal 

implications of such a change, to include cost savings of reduced 

transportation distances; determine the implications for patrons of 

such a change; and provide a recommendation on initiating a program to increase local procurement of fresh meat, poultry, seafood, 

fish, and produce. The committee directs the Secretary to report 

the findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 

May 1, 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
303 

Procurement of Locally Caught Seafood and Fresh-Water Fish by 

Commissaries 

The committee is concerned that commissary stores do not procure locally caught seafood and fresh-water fish for sale within the 

United States. The committee believes that store managers should 

be providing such fresh seafood and fresh-water fish on a regular 

and recurring basis to commissary patrons. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to require 

commissary stores operated by the Defense Commissary Agency in 

the United States to procure fresh seafood and fresh-water fish 

from local sources and sell it on a regular and recurring basis. The 

committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the 

record for commissary stores regarding the procurement of locally 

caught seafood and fresh-water fish in the United States during 

the period beginning on January 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2011, and to report the findings and recommendations concerning 

the procurement of locally caught seafood and fresh-water fish in 

the future, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2012. 

Reserve Retirement 

The committee understands that a Department of Defense legal 

review of section 647 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), has determined that the 

increments of 90 days of active duty that were intended to reduce 

the age at which reserve members may begin to receive retired pay 

below age 60 must be wholly earned within the same fiscal year. 

The committee believes that this interpretation of the law is incorrect. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the issues involved and seek the counsel of the chairman of 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the chairman of the 

House Committee on Armed Services to obtain the information 

needed to make an informed decision. The committee directs the 

Secretary to report the findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by February 1, 2011. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Fiscal Year 2011 Increase in Military Basic Pay 

This section would increase basic pay for members of the uniform 

services by 1.9 percent effective January 1, 2011. This raise would 

continue to fulfill Congress’ commitment to keep pay raises for the 

uniformed services ahead of private sector pay raises. Accordingly, 

the gap between pay increases for the uniformed services and private sector employees during fiscal year 2011 would be reduced 

from approximately 2.4 percent to 1.9 percent. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
304 

Section 602—Basic Allowance for Housing for Two-Member 

Couples When One or Both Members Are on Sea Duty 

This section would authorize military members to receive a basic 

allowance for housing while on sea duty when married to another 

military member, regardless of the other member’s sea duty status, 

pay grade, or sponsorship of dependents, if each member would 

otherwise be entitled to receive a basic allowance for housing. 

Section 603—Allowances for Purchase of Required Uniforms and 

Equipment 

This section would increase the initial clothing allowance that 

may be paid to an officer upon entering service from $400 to $500, 

and the additional allowance that may be paid to an officer upon 

subsequent entries on active duty of 90 days or longer from $200 

to $250. This section would also authorize the secretaries of the 

military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the case of the 

Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service of the Navy, to 

increase the initial clothing allowance paid to an officer above the 

$500 cap established in this section. The committee believes that 

the secretaries of the military departments and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security should be authorized to determine if the initial 

clothing should be increased above $500 to more accurately reflect 

the value of the uniforms that officers are required to purchase 

upon entering service. 

Section 604—Increase in Amount of Family Separation Allowance 

This section would authorize an increase in the family separation 

allowance from $250 per month to $285 per month to compensate 

for an erosion of value due to inflation. 

Section 605—One-Time Special Compensation for Transition of Assistants Providing Aid and Attendance Care to Members of the 

Uniformed Services With Catastrophic Injuries or Illnesses 

This section would amend section 439 of title 37, United States 

Code, as established by the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), to authorize the secretaries 

concerned to pay a one-time special compensation, not to exceed 

$3,500, to a service member with a combat related catastrophic injury or illness for the transition of assistants providing aid and attendance care. 

Section 606—Expansion of Definition of Senior Enlisted Member to 

Include Senior Enlisted Member Serving Within a Combatant 

Command 

This section would increase the rate of pay of individuals designated as the senior enlisted members of the combatant commands to match the pay provided to the Sergeant Major of the 

Army, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, the Chief Master 

Sergeant of the Air Force, the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, 

the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard, and the Senior 

Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
305 

Section 607—Ineligibility of Certain Federal Civilian Employees for 

Reservist Income Replacement Payments on Account of Availability of Comparable Benefits Under Another Program 

This section would clarify that a member of a reserve component 

would not be eligible for income replacement payments under section 910(b) of title 37, United States Code, if the member is also 

a civilian employee of the federal government entitled to a differential payment under section 5538 of title 5, United States Code, or 

another comparable program established for employees of the federal government. 

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special 

Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces 

This section would extend the authority for the Selected Reserve 

reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment 

bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain highpriority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 

without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, and 

income replacement payments until December 31, 2011. 

Section 612—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special 

Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals 

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession 

bonus for registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the accession bonus 

for dental officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the 

accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in 

critically short wartime specialties until December 31, 2011. 

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 

Authorities for Nuclear Officers 

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for 

nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2011. 

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 

37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities 

This section would extend the authority for the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the special bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill incenVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00333 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
306 

tive pay or proficiency bonus, and the retention bonus for members 

with critical military skills or assigned to high-priority units until 

December 31, 2011. 

Section 615—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 

Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays 

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer 

retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus 

for active members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the 

accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive 

bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between armed 

forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates until December 31, 2011. 

Section 616—One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 

Payment of Referral Bonuses 

This section would extend the authority for the health professions referral bonus and the Army referral bonus until December 

31, 2011. 

Section 617—Treatment of Officers Transferring Between Armed 

Forces for Receipt of Aviation Career Special Pay 

This section would require that officers who transfer from one 

armed force to another armed force would receive the same aviation career special pay as other officers in the gaining armed force 

with the same number of years of aviation service performing similar aviation duties in the same weapon system, notwithstanding 

any additional active duty service obligation incurred as a result of 

the transfer. This section would also require, until December 31, 

2015, the secretary concerned to pay aviation career special pay to 

an officer who transferred or transfers from one armed force to an 

armed force under the jurisdiction of the secretary until the officer 

has received a comparable level of benefits with other similarly situated officers. In calculating the number of years of benefits, the 

secretary concerned would include any year that the officer received aviation career special pay before the transfer. 

Section 618—Increase in Maximum Amount of Special Pay for 

Duty Subject to Hostile Fire or Imminent Danger or for Duty in 

Foreign Area Designated as an Imminent Danger Area 

This section would authorize an increase in hostile fire and imminent danger pay from $225 per month to $260 per month to compensate for an erosion of value due to inflation. 

Section 619—Special Payment to Members of the Armed Forces 

and Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense Killed or 

Wounded in Attacks Directed at Members or Employees Outside 

of Combat Zone, Including Those Killed or Wounded in Certain 

2009 Attacks 

This section, for the purposes of all federal laws, regulations, and 

policies, would treat service members and Department of Defense 

civilian employees killed or wounded in the attack at Fort Hood, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
307 

Texas on November 5, 2009, and the attack at the recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1, 2009, as having been 

killed or wounded as a result of an act of an enemy of the United 

States in a combat zone or while serving with Armed Forces in a 

contingency operation. 

This section would further amend title 37, United States Code, 

to add a new authority retroactive to November 6, 2009, that would 

provide special compensation to service members and DOD civilians attacked by an individual whom the Secretary of Defense determines to have knowingly targeted that member or civilian on account of that service member’s service or that civilian’s employment or affiliation with the DOD. The amount of the compensation 

would be equal to that of service members and civilians killed or 

wounded in the combat theater or while serving with Armed Forces 

in a contingency operation. 

This section also would assert that nothing in the provision 

would be construed to prohibit, authorize, or require the award of 

the Purple Heart. 

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Extension of Authority To Provide Travel and Transportation Allowances for Inactive Duty Training outside of Normal Commuting Distances 

This section would extend until December 31, 2011, the authority 

for the secretary concerned to reimburse an eligible member of the 

Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve for travel expenses for travel to an inactive duty training location to perform inactive duty 

training when the member is required to commute a distance from 

the member’s permanent residence to the inactive duty training location that is outside the normal commuting distance. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider revising the requirements of the outside the local commuting distance’’ 

definition used in paragraph U7160 of the Joint Federal Travel 

Regulation implementing section 408a of title 37, United States 

Code, to provide for reimbursement in extraordinary circumstances 

in which travel by means other than land vehicle is not practicable. 

Section 632—Travel and Transportation Allowances for Attendance 

of Designated Persons at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Events 

This section would amend chapter 7 of title 37, United States 

Code, by adding a new section to authorize travel and transportation for designated persons to travel to qualifying Yellow Ribbon 

events. 

Section 633—Mileage Reimbursement for Use of Privately Owned 

Vehicles 

This section would amend sections 5704 and 5707 of title 5, 

United States Code, to conform the mileage reimbursement rate for 

privately owned vehicles established by the Administrator of General Services to the rate established by the Internal Revenue Service. This section would also eliminate the requirement that the 

periodic review of the cost of travel conducted by the Administrator 

of the General Services include privately owned vehicles. Review of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
308 

privately owned airplanes and privately owned motorcycles, however, would still be required to be included in the Administrator’s 

periodic investigations. This section would apply to all federal government employees and members of the uniformed services traveling on behalf of the federal government in a privately owned 

automobile, by establishing a consistent rate that provides adequate compensation for employees who perform temporary duty 

travel. 

SUBTITLE D—RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

Section 641—Elimination of Cap on Retired Pay Multiplier for 

Members With Greater Than 30 Years of Service Who Retire for 

Disability 

This section would authorize service members who serve on active duty for more than 30 years and who are retired with a disability to retain their eligibility to receive a retired pay multiplier 

based on their years of service that would result in a benefit that 

is greater than the 75 percent cap imposed on disability retirements. 

Section 642—Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for 

Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action 

This section would require that the calculation of retired pay for 

reserve component service members who are retired or placed on 

the temporary disability retired list be based on the member’s total 

years of service in lieu of active duty years of service when the retirement is based on a disability incurred under circumstances for 

which the member was awarded the Purple Heart. 

Section 643—Elimination of the Age Requirement for Health Care 

Benefits for Non-Regular Service Retirees 

This section would authorize reserve members entitled to retired 

pay who are under the age of 60 to receive health care benefits authorized for other service members entitled to retired pay. 

Section 644—Clarification of Effect of Ordering Reserve Component 

Member to Active Duty To Receive Authorized Medical Care on 

Reducing Eligibility Age for Receipt of Non-Regular Service Retired Pay 

This section would ensure that reserve members ordered to active duty to receive medical care for wounds, injuries, or illness incurred while serving under circumstances that would allow such 

active service to be the basis for entitlement to retired pay before 

age 60 receive appropriate credit for the purposes of calculating the 

age at which members would be entitled to retired pay. 

Section 645—Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Recipients 

of Pre-Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Affected by Required Offset 

for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 

This section would authorize surviving spouses of retirees who 

died before the implementation of the Survivor Benefit Program to 

receive payments under the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
309 

at the same level of benefit paid to surviving spouses of retirees 

that participated in the Survivor Benefit Plan. This section would 

also require that the spouses be eligible to receive payments under 

the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program operated by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. This section would also authorize retroactive payment of benefits beginning on October 1, 

2008, and would terminate all eligibility for payments on September 30, 2017. 

Section 646—Payment Date for the Retired and Retainer Pay 

This section would require military retired and retainer pay to 

be paid on the first day of each month instead of the first business 

day of the month. The committee intends that the mandate to pay 

on the first day of the month will require that payment processes 

be installed to ensure payment before the first day of the month 

when the first day of the month occurs on a weekend or holiday 

so as to avoid the delay of payments after the first of the month 

that now occurs under the current system. 

SUBTITLE E—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS AND OPERATIONS

Section 651—Shared Construction Costs for Shopping Malls or 

Similar Facilities Containing a Commissary Store and One or 

More Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Activities 

This section would clarify that the Secretary of Defense may designate the Defense Commissary Agency to manage construction 

programs using funds derived from commissary surcharge accounts 

and to receive funds from nonappropriated fund instrumentalities 

when the Defense Commissary Agency is designated to manage 

joint construction programs that include such instrumentalities. 

Section 652—Addition of Definition of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Telephone Services for Use in Contracts To Provide Such 

Services for Military Personnel Serving in Combat Zones 

This section would clarify that the competitive contracting requirements for procuring personal telephone services in combat 

zones established in section 885 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), applies to unofficial calling centers provided by a nonappropriated fund activity 

and does not apply to wireless cell phone services. 

Section 653—Feasibility Study on Establishment of Full Exchange 

Store in the Northern Mariana Islands 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study to determine the feasibility of establishing a full-service exchange store to support the members and dependents within the 

military community residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
310 

SUBTITLE F—ALTERNATIVE CAREER TRACK PILOT PROGRAM

Section 661—Pilot Program to Evaluate Alternative Career Track 

for Commissioned Officers To Facilitate an Increased Commitment to Academic and Professional Education and Career-Broadening Assignments 

The committee continues to be concerned about the widely accepted notion among military leaders, and often acknowledged in 

personnel management studies, that officer careers are not adequately designed to provide for the education and career broadening assignments that are critical to the development of wellrounded modern military leaders. The committee believes that the 

complex international environment confronting the U.S. military 

requires the officer corps to not only be proficient in conventional 

warfare from a specific service perspective, but to also develop a 

broad knowledge of the roles of the other services, allied military 

forces, civilian government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental agencies, as well as a strategic knowledge of politics and economics. This extensive, but justifiable mission may not be executable within the traditional time periods and 

career gates that were established in a previous era for a different 

international environment. Career paths should provide the time, 

experience, and intellectual development to generate the comprehensive knowledge and well-grounded grasp of strategic affairs. 

This holistic vision of officer development requires a diverse and 

flexible career path that does not exist in today’s personnel system 

that is marked by mandatory retirement standards and a rigid upor-out policy. 

This section would authorize an active duty pilot program to provide a select cadre of volunteers the opportunity to participate in 

a separate career track marked by expanded career opportunities 

extending over a longer career. The secretaries of the military departments, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, would offer officers with between 13 and 18 years of service 

the opportunity to participate in the alternative career track. This 

section would require participating officers to agree to an additional active duty service obligation of at least five years and to accept further active duty service obligations, as determined by the 

secretary of the military department, as a result of entry into education programs, selection for career broadening assignments, acceptance of additional special and incentive pays, or selection for 

promotion, each to be served concurrently with existing active duty 

service obligations. This section would also authorize the secretaries of the military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, to establish separate basic pay and special and 

incentive pay and promotion systems unique to the officers participating in the alternative career track without regard to the requirements of titles 10 and 37, United States Code, thus allowing 

officers to be compensated at higher rates and promoted ahead of 

their contemporaries to ensure that participating officers are provided adequate incentives. This section would authorize each secretary of a military department to select up to 50 officers annually 

to participate in the alternative career track. The committee envisions that officers selected for the alternative career track would 

reflect diversity in job specialties to ensure that support functions, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
311 

as well as operational missions, benefited from the assignment of 

officers selected to serve longer careers. The secretaries of the military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, 

would be authorized to establish separation and retirement policies 

for officers serving in the alternative career track without regard 

to grade and years of service requirements established in title 10, 

United States Code. Participants serving in grades below brigadier 

general, or rear admiral (lower half) in the Navy, would serve without regard to the limits on the numbers of officers in those grades 

established in title 10, United States Code. Participants serving in 

grades above colonel, or captain in the Navy, and below the grade 

of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the Navy, would be counted for the purposes of general and flag officer limits on grade and 

total number of such officers when serving in a military position, 

but would be excluded from limits on grade and total number of 

such officers when serving in positions not typically occupied by a 

military officer. Officers serving in grades lieutenant general, or 

vice admiral in the Navy, and general, or admiral in the Navy, 

would be counted for the purposes of general and flag officer limits 

on grade and total number of such officers in title 10, United 

States Code. The secretaries of the military departments would retain the authority to involuntarily return officers to the standard 

career path where the officer would retain the grade, date-of-rank, 

and basic pay table earned while a participant in the alternative 

career track, but would revert to the special and incentive pay authorities established in title 37, United States Code. The committee 

believes that participants should be groomed to meet the requirements to become joint qualified. 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, to operate the pilot program for not more than 15 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act. The secretaries of the military departments 

would be authorized to begin the program at any time: (1) before 

the expiration of a five-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) 120 days after reporting the detailed program structure of the alternative career track, associated personnel 

policy decisions, implementing instructions and regulations, and a 

summary of specific laws that would be waived, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. The secretary of the military department, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, would be authorized to terminate the pilot program at any time. This section would require the 

Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, to report, 

the reasons for terminating the pilot program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services not later than 90 days after terminating the pilot program. The secretaries of the military departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, would be authorized to recommend changes to the pilot program at any time by reporting 

their findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services and 

waiting for 120 days to elapse. This section would also require the 

secretaries of the military departments, in cooperation with the 

Secretary of Defense, during the pilot program to annually report 

his findings and recommendations concerning the progress of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
312 

pilot program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services. 

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 671—Participation of Members of the Armed Forces Health 

Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program in Active Duty Health Profession Loan Repayment Program 

This section would expand the pool of eligible participants for the 

Active Duty Health Professions Loan Repayment Program 

(ADHPLRP) to include members participating in the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) when the duration of the HPSP 

scholarship is less than is required to complete the normal length 

of the course of study required for the specific health profession. 

Current law restricts the use of ADHPLRP by HPSP participants 

to those who are fully-qualified or in their last year of study or specialty training. 

Section 672—Retention of Enlistment, Reenlistment, and Student 

Loan Benefits Received by Military Technicians (Dual Status) 

This section would bar the secretary concerned from requiring 

service members employed as dual status military technicians to 

repay enlistment, reenlistment, or affiliation bonuses, or to terminate participation in an educational loan repayment program that 

were paid or began during service that preceded the military technician employment period. 

Section 673—Cancellation of Loans of Members of the Armed 

Forces Made From Student Loan Funds 

This section would define, for the purposes of eligibility for student loan cancellation for public service under section 1087ee of 

title 20, United States Code, that a ‘‘year of service’’ is equal to deployments of six months or longer in hostile fire or imminent danger zones (or less than six months in the case the service member 

was discharged or released from active duty due to an injury or disability incurred or aggravated by his or her service). 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee remains concerned about the ability of the Defense Health Program to support operational requirements, accessibility, and quality health care provided to service members. After 

nine years of conflict, the military health system has had difficulty 

meeting current demands, as evidenced by the continued shift from 

the direct care system to the purchased care system. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is not adapting 

its approach to recruit and retain military medical providers quickly enough to maintain capability during changing circumstances. 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for fully 

funding the Defense Health Program to help meet the demands 

placed on the military health system. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
313 

The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense did 

not propose many of the objectionable proposals of years past, such 

as: onerous TRICARE fee increases that place the burden of improving the system on beneficiaries; efficiency wedges that cut the 

health care budgets of the services without sound underlying analytics; and the conversion of military medical positions to civilian 

medical positions. However, the committee is concerned that the 

budget request did not contain sufficient transformative steps to 

address the growing costs of providing health care to Department 

of Defense beneficiaries. The committee notes that little, if any, 

progress has been made towards the development of a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy for moving the military health system 

forward. The committee is encouraged that the Secretary of Defense continues to express a willingness to engage in a thoughtful 

dialogue with Congress to develop this comprehensive strategy, but 

notes that this dialogue has not yet begun. 

For the past few years, Congress has encouraged the Department 

of Defense to improve the health status of the beneficiary population and improve the cost-effectiveness of the care provided to 

beneficiaries by adopting proven practices. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417), contained many initiatives to improve preventive and 

wellness care, but 18 months after it was signed into law, the committee is still waiting for most of these provisions to be fully implemented. The committee notes that Public Law 110–417 also gave 

the Department of Defense great latitude and authority to conduct 

demonstration projects to test other methods of improving the 

health of beneficiaries while reducing costs, but has not made use 

of that authority. 

The committee is concerned that substandard or unacceptable behavior displayed by students and residents during training programs for military Medical Corps officers may not be completely 

documented in official military personnel records. The committee 

believes that military Medical Corps officers and trainees must 

meet high standards of both clinical skill and military leadership. 

The committee is concerned that when the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs pursue joint or combined 

health care operations, an insufficient amount of joint strategic 

analysis and planning is done. The committee therefore encourages 

the Departments to develop a strategic planning framework for future projects. The committee also notes that, neither it, nor the 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, have been provided with 

appropriate notification of health care facilities that have been considered for joint or combined operations. 

The committee notes that in cases of dependents of a member or 

a former member who are ineligible to receive care under 

TRICARE, the Department of Defense currently expects the managed care support contractor and civilian source of medical care to 

recoup the costs of the care provided. The committee believes that 

in cases in which a civilian source of medical care provided services 

in good faith and followed proper identification procedures to determine eligibility, those civilian medical providers should not be financially penalized. The current policy may serve as a disincentive 

for civilian sources of medical care to participate in the TRICARE 

program. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
314 

The committee remains committed to ensuring that wounded 

warriors receive the care, rehabilitation, and support they need and 

deserve. The committee also remains concerned that there are still 

not enough mental health resources to fulfill the needs of our service members and their families, and will continue to provide vigilant oversight to improve the mental health care available to Department of Defense beneficiaries. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Comparative Cognitive Test Study 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comparison study on the effectiveness and reliability of various computerized test batteries when used as pre- and post-deployment assessment tools for neurocognitive functioning. The purpose of the study 

is to obtain evidence-based outcomes of various neurocognitive assessment tools to aid in the detection of brain injuries when a service member returns from deployment. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the comparison test to 

the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2011. 

Comparative Effectiveness of Neuroimaging Modalities on the 

Detection of Traumatic Brain Injury 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of neuroimaging 

modalities as imaging biomarkers for the detection of mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injuries. The neuroimaging modalities to be evaluated should include, but be not limited to, the 

following: 

(1) Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound 

(2) Computed Tomography (CT) 

(3) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) 

(4) Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) 

(5) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2012. 

Continuation of Health Insurance for Reservists on Active Duty 

Section 704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) authorized the Secretary of Defense to pay a stipend to a member of the reserve components ordered to active duty for the purpose of maintaining civilian health 

care coverage for a dependent whom the Secretary determines to 

possess a special health care need that would be best met by remaining in the member’s civilian health plan. The committee is 

aware that there are dependents with special health care needs 

that may be in the middle of treatment or about to begin the process of treatment, and that continuation in the member’s civilian 

health plan would be advantageous to the continuity of care for 

such a dependent. The committee believes that individuals in such 

unique and special circumstances should have the ability to receive 

a well-planned transfer from their civilian plan to TRICARE. Currently, active duty dependents who have special health care needs 

and must transfer from one region to another are highlighted from 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
315 

one managed care contractor to another to ensure a smooth transition. The committee believes such transfers should also be afforded 

to similarly situated reserve dependents. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on the extent to which the authority under section 704 of Public Law 110–181 has been used. The report should 

also include a description of the process to be used to ensure the 

smooth transition of dependents with special health care needs 

from their civilian health care plan to TRICARE. 

Delays in Awarding New TRICARE Contracts 

The committee notes the delays that have characterized the current efforts to award the next round of TRICARE support contracts, known as T3. This process has incurred multiple delays before being awarded, and the current award is in doubt after the 

Government Accountability Office sustained the protests in two of 

the three TRICARE regions due to serious shortcomings in the proposal evaluation. The committee is concerned that these delays 

which are the result of inadequate processes by the TRICARE 

Management Activity will hamper Department of Defense efforts to 

improve the health care provided to beneficiaries, while gaining 

control over health care costs. 

The committee is concerned, as discussed in a related item of 

special interest in Title VIII of this Act, that the acquisition expertise of the TRICARE Management Activity may not be sufficient to 

support the broad range of acquisition activities needed to support 

the military health system. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that effective acquisition management 

personnel, structure, processes, and oversight are put in place to 

support the provision of health care by the Department of Defense. 

Development of Non-Addictive Topical Pain Therapeutics 

The committee remains concerned about chronic and acute pain 

management and the deleterious effects of improperly managed 

pain on service members and veterans. The committee has acted 

previously by requiring in section 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that the 

Secretary of Defense develop and implement a comprehensive policy on pain management by the military health care system. The 

committee is aware of reports of prescription pain medication misuse by members of the armed forces. Prescription painkiller misuse 

can impact the quality of life for service members and their families. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the pain 

management infrastructure being stood up by the Department of 

Defense to evaluate the potential role of emerging pain therapeutics, to include topical analgesic formulations, in order to provide our men and women in uniform with effective means of pain 

management. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report on this evaluation to the congressional defense 

committees by March 31, 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
316 

Exposure Registry Feasibility Study 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the feasibility of establishing an active registry for each incidence of exposure of occupational and environmental chemical 

hazards, to include waste disposal, during conflicts, to monitor possible health risks and provide necessary treatment to those exposed. The report should discuss processes in which service members exposed to toxic chemicals could be included on the registry 

and procedures to provide medical examinations to service members who are eligible to be included on the registry. The report 

should also seek to leverage existing medical surveillance systems. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2011. 

Feasibility of TRICARE Prime in Certain Commonwealths and 

Territories of the United States 

The committee is aware that TRICARE Prime is not currently 

available as an option for Department of Defense beneficiaries in 

certain commonwealths and territories of the United States. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study examining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of offering TRICARE 

Prime in the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

the United States Virgin Islands, the Territory of American Samoa, 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and to 

submit a report on the study to the congressional defense committees within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Former Military Medics and Corpsmen 

The committee notes the large number of military medics and 

corpsmen, many with combat experience, that leave the military 

and rejoin civilian communities every year. The committee encourages federal, national, and state emergency medical technician certification authorities to take into account the medical coursework 

and training received by former military medics and corpsmen 

when developing certification tests and standards. 

Genitourinary Trauma in the Military 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the current state of medical training and research for genitourinary trauma within the Department of Defense to determine if there are any 

deficits with regard to the care that can be provided in combat 

zones. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit a report on this review to the congressional defense committees not 

later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Health Information Technology Interoperability Between the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Section 1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the establishment of an 

interagency program office to implement, by September 20, 2009, 

electronic health record systems or capabilities that allow for full 

interoperability of personal health care information between the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
317 

The committee notes that the interagency program office has been 

unsuccessful in developing or adopting effective standards to enable full interoperability of electronic health records, despite significant funding increases and leadership from the Administration. 

The committee notes that the requirements of section 1635 will not 

be fulfilled until electronic health record systems or capabilities 

that allow for full interoperability of personal health care information between the Department of Defense and the Department of 

Veterans Affairs for all service members are in operation. 

Medical Technology and Spectrum Sharing 

The committee is aware of new technologies that assist wounded 

warriors, such as those who have paralyzed or impaired limbs, or 

other traumatic injuries, to reanimate their injured limbs and muscle tissue. Such technologies utilize micro-stimulators that are controlled by low-powered radio frequencies. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to take into account the medical benefits of these new technologies for active duty service members as 

part of spectrum sharing decisions. The committee also directs the 

Secretary to submit a report on any spectrum sharing issues for 

parts of the spectrum under the control of the Department of Defense related to micro-stimulators to the congressional defense committees within one year of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Medical Training for Chemical-Biological Casualties 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate all 

medical training programs for chemical and biological casualties. 

The committee directs the Secretary to use a comprehensive set of 

metrics in evaluating the efficacy of current training models. The 

committee also directs the Secretary to submit a report on these 

evaluations to the congressional defense committees within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Outreach Tools Using an Interactive Virtual Agent 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has considered using interactive virtual agents on either websites or standalone computers to help reduce barriers to individuals seeking 

mental health care. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on all 

health care related projects or programs that use an interactive virtual agent not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

Pre-Deployment Counseling for Unmarried Service Members With 

Dependent Children 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of establishing a pre-deployment counseling and services 

advisory panel. The study should include the practicality of appointing, from among individuals in the private sector qualified for 

such purpose, a panel of individuals to: review the pre-deployment 

counseling and services provided by the military departments to 

unmarried members of the Armed Forces with dependent children; 

identify best practices among such counseling and services; and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
318 

recommend such improvements in such counseling and services (including improvements in such best practices) as the panel considers 

appropriate. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the findings to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2011. 

Study on the Treatment of Service Members of the Active and 

Reserve Component for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report evaluating the barriers 

to treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for service members of both the active and reserve components within one year 

after the date of enactment of this Act. The report may use timely 

information developed in the preparation of other reports currently 

being prepared for or previously submitted to Congress. The report 

should, at a minimum, address the following: 

(1) An overview of current programs in place to identify 

and provide treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

to service members. 

(2) An overview of outreach programs currently in place 

to educate service members of the signs of Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder, available treatment programs, options for 

treatment, and support groups. 

(3) An overview of programs currently in place to reach 

out to families, including children, of both the active and 

reserve components to educate them of the signs of PostTraumatic Stress Disorder and to provide support to families coping with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

(4) An assessment of barriers to service members receiving treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, including an assessment of the effects stigma, privacy, and career advancement concerns play in service members not 

receiving treatment. 

(5) An assessment and identification of other factors that 

may deter service members from seeking treatment for 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

(6) An assessment of the effectiveness of current programs and policies. 

(7) Recommendations for improvements to outreach and 

educational policies and programs. 

(8) Recommendations for improvements to family outreach and treatment programs. 

(9) Recommendations for improvements to existing programs or for new programs needed to expand and improve 

identification and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

Suicide and the Individual Ready Reserve 

The committee notes the challenges members of the Individual 

Ready Reserve (IRR) face in obtaining support services when not 

mobilized. The committee also notes that suicide rates are rising 

across the services and reserve components. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider the feasibility and potential benefit of a program that would ensure that members of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
319 

IRR who have served at least one tour in either the Republic of 

Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and who are not assigned to units that drill regularly, receive at minimum, quarterly 

counseling calls from properly trained personnel to determine the 

IRR member’s emotional, psychological, and medical needs so long 

as the covered service member is in the IRR. 

TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense began 

implementation of the TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment 

System (OPPS) in May 2009, to bring its reimbursement rates for 

hospital outpatient services into alignment with Medicare rates, as 

required by section 1079 of title 10, United States Code. The committee notes that although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services began using a similar prospective payment system for outpatient care under Medicare in August 2000, the Department of 

Defense delayed implementing the system until the Medicare transition to OPPS was complete. The committee notes that the new 

TRICARE OPPS will change reimbursement rates for hospital outpatient services. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to closely monitor implementation of TRICARE OPPS to ensure that it does not unintentionally decrease access to health care 

for military beneficiaries. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—IMPROVEMENTS TO HEALTH BENEFITS

Section 701—Extension of Prohibition on Increases in Certain 

Health Care Costs 

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from increasing the premium and copayment for TRICARE Prime, the 

charge for inpatient care for TRICARE Standard, and the premium 

for TRICARE Standard for members of the Selected Reserve until 

September 30, 2011. 

Section 702—Extension of Dependent Coverage Under TRICARE 

This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United States 

Code, to allow TRICARE beneficiaries to extend health care coverage to dependent children up to age 26 so that TRICARE beneficiaries would have the same ability to extend coverage to dependent children afforded to others as a result of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148). 

Section 703—Survivor Dental Benefits 

This section would make dependent survivors eligible to enroll in 

the TRICARE dental program even if they were not enrolled prior 

to the death of their sponsor. 

Section 704—Aural Screenings for Members of the Armed Forces 

This section would require members of the armed forces to receive pre- and post-deployment aural screenings. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
320 

Section 705—Temporary Prohibition on Increase in Copayments 

Under Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy Benefits Program 

This section would limit the cost-sharing requirements for drugs 

provided through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program to 

amounts not more than $3 for generic drugs, $9 for formulary 

drugs, and $22 for non-formulary drugs. The cost-sharing schedules 

established by this section would end September 30, 2011. 

SUBTITLE B—HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

Section 711—Administration of TRICARE 

This section would add a subparagraph to section 1073 title 10, 

United States Code, that states that except as otherwise provided 

in chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense has sole responsibility for administering the TRICARE program. 

Section 712—Updated Terminology for the Army Medical Service 

Corps 

This section would update section 3068 of title 10, United States 

Code, to ensure the statutory description of the Army Medical 

Service Corps accurately reflects the current structure and organization of the corps. 

Section 713—Clarification of Licensure Requirements Applicable to 

Military Health-Care Professionals Who Are Members of the National Guard Performing Duty While in Title 32 Status 

This section would clarify that national guard medical personnel 

serving in a title 32, United States Code, status while responding 

to actual or potential disasters are authorized to practice their profession in any location authorized by the Secretary of Defense regardless of local licensing restrictions. With the expansion of authority under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, the national guard, for example, may be authorized by the Governor, with 

concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to evacuate hospitals and 

nursing homes in advance of a major hurricane, but current law 

may not protect the national guard medical care providers from licensing issues. 

Section 714—Annual Report on Joint Health Care Facilities of the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit to the appropriate congressional committees, concurrent with the annual submission of 

the President’s budget, a report on which Department of Defense 

or Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities are being 

considered for joint, combined, or any other type of operation where 

one of the departments will be operating in or with the other department’s health care facility. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
321 

Section 715—Improvements to Oversight of Medical Training for 

Medical Corps Officers 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to perform 

a review of training programs for military Medical Corps officers 

to ensure that their academic and military performance has been 

properly documented in their military personnel records. This section would also require the Secretary to submit to the congressional 

defense committees a report on these reviews within one year after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 716—Study on Reimbursement for Costs of Health Care 

Provided to Ineligible Individuals 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study on the cost incurred by the government on behalf of individuals ineligible to receive care under the TRICARE program. This 

section would also require the Secretary to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees on the study within 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, as well as any recommendations for legislative action required to address any findings of the 

study. 

Section 717—Limitation on Transfer of Funds to Department of 

Defense—Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Project 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

Congress a report providing notice of any proposed transfer of 

funds to the Joint Department of Defense–Department of Veterans 

Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 

1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Section 718—Enterprise Risk Assessment of Health Information 

Technology Programs 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

an Enterprise Risk Assessment Methodology study of all Department of Defense health information technology programs. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 721—Improving Aural Protection for Members of the 

Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to examine 

methods to improve aural protection for members of the armed 

forces. 

Section 722—Comprehensive Policy on Neurocognitive Assessment 

by the Military Health System 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

and implement a comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment for deployed members of the armed forces. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
322 

Section 723—National Casualty Care Research Center 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a National Casualty Care Research Center. 

Section 724—Report on Feasibility of Study on Breast Cancer 

Among Female Members of the Armed Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees on the feasibility of 

conducting a case-control study on the incidence of breast cancer 

among female service members who served in either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Section 725—Assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by 

Military Occupation 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

an assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder incidence by military occupation. 

Section 726—Visiting NIH Neuroscience Fellowship Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to be known as the Visiting National Institutes of 

Health Senior Neuroscience Fellowship Program at the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

OVERVIEW 

On March 17, 2009, the committee appointed a Panel on Defense 

Acquisition Reform from among members of the committee to carry 

out a comprehensive review of the defense acquisition system. The 

review was motivated by the committee’s general sense that the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) acquisition system was not responsive enough to today’s mission needs, not rigorous enough in 

protecting taxpayers, and not disciplined enough in the acquisition 

of weapons systems for tomorrow’s wars. The panel’s review largely 

substantiated the committee’s concerns. The committee notes that 

the House of Representatives has already passed legislation, unanimously supported by the committee, to implement reforms recommended by the panel, the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010). 

The committee notes that while the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 

2010 is intended to address the full scope of the defense acquisition 

system, there remain numerous acquisition policy-related matters 

outside the scope of the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 that are 

within the committee’s jurisdiction and are addressed in this title. 

The committee included a provision which would expand the Department’s authority for rapid acquisition in concert with the committee’s decision to provide significant additional funding for rapid 

acquisition in title XV of this Act. The committee builds upon legisVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
323 

lation included in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) authorizing the 

Department to designate major subprograms under major defense 

acquisition programs by including provisions in the title that would 

clarify the application of multiple acquisition-related laws to major 

subprograms, and would require the Secretary of Defense to designate the F135 and F136 engine programs of the F–35 Lightning 

II aircraft program as major subprograms. 

The committee included several provisions relating to strategic 

materials in this title to ensure that the Department of Defense retains access to these materials and is able to mitigate 

vulnerabilities created when items of military equipment are dependent on them. The committee continues and extends its work 

providing oversight on contracting in the Republic of Iraq and the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in this title, and addresses a variety of other matters relating to the industrial base, energy-related 

acquisition matters, and other matters of acquisition policy. The 

committee emphasizes its intention to continue robust oversight of 

defense acquisition. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Acquisition Oversight for TRICARE Management Agency 

As discussed in a related item of special interest in title VII of 

this Act, the committee is concerned about the acquisition expertise 

of the TRICARE Management Agency (TMA). The committee is 

aware of significant shortcomings in the recent past in the training 

and certification status of those undertaking acquisition functions 

at TMA. These shortcomings are concerning because TMA is responsible for acquisitions budgeted at levels equivalent to those of 

a major defense acquisition program. The committee also notes 

that protests on two out of three regional TRICARE contract 

awards were upheld in 2009 by the Government Accountability Office due to significant shortcomings in proposal evaluation. 

The committee is aware that TMA has reorganized its acquisition 

activities and has appointed a new chief acquisition officer in recent months. The committee strongly supports the decision to enhance the extent and quality of acquisition expertise at TMA. The 

committee also notes that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) acts as the service acquisition executive for TMA and ultimately provides oversight 

of acquisition activities at TMA. The committee urges USD AT&L 

to continue to provide a heightened level of oversight to TMA while 

the acquisition function in TMA is being enhanced and TRICARE 

regional contracts are finalized. 

Acquisition Process for Information Technology 

The committee recognizes the need for reform of the acquisition 

process within the Department of Defense. The committee has 

taken several steps to achieve comprehensive acquisition reform, 

including passage of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) and section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), 

which called for an alternative acquisition process for information 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
324 

technology (IT) systems, and the establishment of the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform which carried out a comprehensive review 

of the defense acquisition system. 

The committee endorses the findings of the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform, and encourages the Department of Defense to integrate its findings regarding the acquisition of IT systems as it 

implements section 804 of Public Law 111–84. The full findings of 

the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform can be found in H.R. 

5013, but include: 

(1) Determine clear performance metrics for specific programs from the start; 

(2) Foster an ongoing dialogue during the technology development process between the system developers and the 

warfighters; 

(3) Promote an open architecture approach that allows for 

more modularization of hardware and software; 

(4) Develop a plan for how to strengthen the IT acquisition 

workforce; 

(5) Implement alternative milestone decision points that are 

more consistent with commercial product development for IT; 

(6) Develop a process for competitive prototyping in the IT 

environment; 

(7) Develop a new test and evaluation approach that merges 

developmental and operational testing in a parallel fashion; 

(8) Place greater emphasis on the up-front market analysis; 

and 

(9) Conduct a rigorous analysis of contracting mechanisms 

and contract incentive structures to determine which work best 

for IT acquisitions. 

Advanced Technology Clusters 

The committee is aware of recent Department of Defense (DOD) 

and Small Business Administration efforts through the DOD Office 

of Small Business Programs and its laboratory network to initiate 

regional Advanced Technology Clusters (ATCs) to encourage the development of innovative advanced technologies, including robotics 

and autonomous systems, to address national security, homeland 

security, and first responder challenges. The committee is encouraged that the Department has made progress in marshalling existing statutory authorities in support of ATC and defining a method 

to collaborate with and leverage resources from the Small Business 

Administration. However, the committee is concerned that greater 

effort and commitment must be made in order to secure the support needed for these fledgling ATCs to succeed. To date, ATCs in 

Hawaii, Michigan, Hampton Roads, Virginia, and the Pacific 

Northwest have been established, each offering expertise in advanced technology and coordinating application of the current authorities contained in the following: (1) Technology Transition—Defense Production Act, Technology Transition, and Manufacturing 

Technology; (2) Industrial Policy—Defense Industrial Base Capabilities, Civil-Military Integration, and Independent Research and 

Development/Bid and Proposal; (3) Technology Transfer, Homeland 

Security Tech Transfer, Anti-Terrorist Capabilities; and (4) Small 

Business—Mentor Prote ́ge ́ Program and SBIR/STTR. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
325 

The committee urges the Department of Defense to enhance regional ATCs, resource the clusters, collaborate and share resources 

with other federal agencies, and assist the expansion of regional 

clusters in encouraging the development of innovative advanced 

technologies, including robotics and autonomous systems, to address national security, homeland security, and first responder 

challenges. 

Application of Berry Amendment to Tents and Related Items 

The committee is aware that the Director, Defense Logistics 

Agency has chosen to interpret the requirement to buy certain articles from domestic sources per subsection (b) of section 2533a of 

title 10, United States Code, in such a manner that it applies expressly to tents, tarpaulins, or covers, but not to the materials and 

components of tents, tarpaulins, or covers. The committee is concerned that this narrow interpretation of the statute is inconsistent 

with the law. Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Defense Logistics Agency to review the interpretation of the current 

statute to ensure that it is compliant with both the law and with 

congressional intent and submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than October 1, 2011, explaining how 

the committees’ concerns were addressed. 

Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 

The committee notes that section 841 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) created the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deadline for submission of the final report of the commission was extended for one year by section 822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

to reflect additional time needed to accommodate the delays that 

occurred in establishing the commission in the final year of the 

previous Administration. The committee notes that section 841 

mandated that the commission’s final report provide its findings 

and recommendations on a number of critical policy issues relating 

to contingency contracting. The committee urges the commission to 

use the additional year to focus on these policy issues so that the 

committee can benefit from the timely submission of the commission’s findings and recommendations in its final report while significant reconstruction expenditures remain in execution and under 

consideration by Congress. 

Competition Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Federal 

Prison Industries 

The committee notes that section 827 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to acquire products using 

competitive procedures if such a product was listed in the Federal 

Prison Industries (FPI) catalog, and if FPI has more than a five 

percent share of the DOD market for the category that includes the 

product. The committee notes that Congress intended this policy to 

limit the extent to which FPI’s unique status under federal procurement law affects the Department’s access to the commercial 

marketplace for entire categories of products while maintaining 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
326 

FPI’s ability to serve as a supplier to the Department. The committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense is required to 

identify and publish a list of the product categories for which this 

competition requirement applies and to modify the list as new data 

is received. 

The committee notes that the implementation of this section relies critically on how product categories are defined. Overly broad 

categories can effectively nullify the requirements of the section 

while overly narrow categories increase the administrative burden 

of these requirements. The committee believes that in order for the 

application of section 827 to be consistent with congressional intent, product categories should be defined so that the products 

within a category are part of a marketplace with similar market 

participants. Categories that aggregate large numbers of dissimilar 

market participants can lead to the Department being denied access to an entire commercial market. The committee notes that in 

the past, combat helmets have sometimes been treated as items 

which required mandatory sourcing from Federal Prison Industries. 

The committee further notes that combat helmets fall within the 

broad and diverse category of personal armor, which may have contributed to a mandatory sourcing designation. Likewise, the committee is concerned that the lists may be published irregularly, 

which limits the planning horizon for market participants, and that 

non-competitive awards may be made to FPI prior to the effective 

date of newly published lists (after which a procurement preference 

for FPI may not apply). 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to: review the list 

of product categories used in complying with section 827 to ensure 

that these categories contain similar market participants and are 

consistent with the need to protect the Department’s access to the 

commercial market; to establish consistent dates for the publication 

of an updated list; and to notify industry of such dates. Lastly, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of contract awards made to FPI (including awards of 

contract options on existing contracts) since the enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181) to ensure that non-competitive awards are not being 

made to FPI following the publication of a new list of product categories, but prior to the effective date of such a list. The Secretary 

should submit a report on such a review to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after enactment of this 

Act. 

Denial of Award Fees to Contractors for Jeopardizing Government 

Personnel 

The committee notes that section 823 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) authorized the Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny award fees to contractors who jeopardize the health or safety of government personnel. The committee notes that section 823 provides the Secretary with considerable discretion in the application of this authority due to the diverse nature of the incidents for which this authority may be applicable. The committee believes that this authority provides an important tool for the Secretary to correct instances 

where negligent contractor behavior becomes apparent only after 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
327 

significant levels of contractor profit have already been awarded. 

However, the proper application of the authority is necessary for it 

to serve its intended purpose. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2011, on 

incidents which satisfy the criteria identified in section 823(b). The 

report should list covered incidents occurring in the calendar year 

preceding the submission of the report, whether or not the Secretary exercised the authority provided by section 823 in relation 

to the incident, and whether the Secretary proposed the contractor 

for debarment in relation to the incident. 

Employment Impact of Military Construction 

The committee notes that Department of Defense contracts, 

while properly focused first and foremost on fulfilling national security objectives, are also a significant source of employment. In 

particular, contracts for military construction produce significant 

local employment benefits. The committee notes that maximizing 

the local employment benefits of military construction contracts, 

consistent with achieving national security objectives and the effective use of defense resources, is an important national interest. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study ways of 

maximizing the local employment benefits of military construction 

contracts including: incentives for hiring locally licensed labor; the 

increased use of small businesses for subcontractors and local procurements; a review of existing small business subcontracting goals 

and the effects of an expansion of such goals; and any other measures the Secretary deems appropriate. The study should also include an evaluation of potential costs to the Department that each 

option considered would incur. The committee further directs the 

Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees containing the findings of the study by March 1, 2011. 

Matters Relating to the Common Database for Tracking Contracts 

and Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan 

Section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Secretary of Defense, 

the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the United States 

Agency for International Development (USAID) to enter into a 

memorandum of understanding regarding matters relating to contracts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) later clarified that the requirements of section 861 of Public Law 110–181 also apply to grants 

and cooperative agreements. In response, the agencies promulgated 

new business rules requiring all personnel working under U.S. contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan 

to register in the Department of Defense’s Synchronized Pre-deployment Operational Tracker (SPOT) database. 

The committee has become aware that many nongovernmental 

organizations (NGO) have expressed concern about these new requirements. The NGOs believe that providing the U.S. Government 

detailed personal information for their Iraqi and Afghan employees 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
328 

puts the neutrality of their organizations at risk and endangers the 

safety and security of these local national employees. In testimony 

before the committee on March 23, 2010, on these concerns, representatives from the Department of Defense, the Department of 

State, and USAID assured the committee that they would address 

the concerns of the NGOs in a way that would still meet the needs 

of the agencies. The committee encourages the agencies to find and 

implement a solution quickly and stresses the importance of the 

work performed by these NGOs. The committee also emphasizes 

that the statute only requires an accounting of total numbers of 

personnel, unless those personnel are performing private security 

functions. The committee encourages the agencies not to collect detailed personal information on local national personnel working 

under a U.S. contract, grant, or cooperative agreement unless such 

personnel are performing a private security function; require access 

to U.S. facilities, services, or support; or desire consideration for 

refugee or special immigrant status under the Refugee Crisis in 

Iraq Act of 2007 (subtitle C of title XII of Public Law 110–181). 

The committee continues to be concerned about the slow progress 

made by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and 

USAID in fully implementing the requirements of section 861 of 

Public Law 110–181. The committee has tracked the implementation of the memorandum of understanding and the SPOT database 

with interest and is disappointed by the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) most recent assessment, which found that the 

agencies continue to face significant challenges tracking contractor 

personnel and contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee 

encourages the Department of Defense and its partner agencies to 

fully implement the SPOT database and take appropriate steps to 

ensure it is accurate and complete. The committee recommends 

that such steps include penalties on contractors who do not comply 

with their SPOT database requirements. In testimony before the 

committee on March 23, 2010, representatives from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID indicated 

that part of the reason the SPOT database was incomplete and inaccurate was that many of their contractors were remiss in entering the information needed. The committee encourages the agencies 

to include, in any new or modified contracts, penalties for contractors who fail to enter and update their required SPOT database information and that contracting officers exercise those penalties as 

appropriate. 

The committee emphasizes that an accurate and complete database on contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only required by 

section 861 of Public Law 110–181, but is in the best interest of 

the agencies, Congress, and the public. A fully accurate and complete SPOT database would allow the agencies to better manage 

and coordinate their contracts, would enable more effective oversight by Congress, and would facilitate greater transparency in 

government spending to the public. Furthermore, both GAO and 

the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction have 

stressed to the committee that if the SPOT database were accurate 

and complete, it would be a valuable tool to assist them in audits 

and investigations. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
329 

Titanium Supply for Defense Uses 

The committee notes that titanium is an increasingly important 

element in the supply chain of the Department of Defense as well 

as in the supply chains of an increasing variety of commercial 

firms. The market for titanium and titanium parts has changed 

significantly in recent years, though it remains a market heavily 

influenced by foreign suppliers. The committee further notes that 

section 2533b of title 10, United States Code, requires the Department of Defense, with a few limited exceptions, to procure titanium 

produced in the United States. 

The rapidly evolving nature of the market for titanium, coupled 

with recent changes in section 2533b, has created significant uncertainty about the status of the domestic titanium manufacturing 

and production base and about the Department’s requirements for 

titanium. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report on the state of the domestic titanium manufacturing base 

to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011. The report should: 

(1) Identify projected levels of supply, over the next five 

years, for titanium and titanium parts produced in the United 

States (as such term is defined in section 2533b of title 10, 

United States Code, as amendment by section 813 this Act) for 

Department of Defense end items, or components thereof, including a discussion of the different metal grades, for each of 

the following categories: aircraft; missile and space systems; 

ships; tank and automotive items; weapon systems; and ammunition; 

(2) Provide a projection of the Department’s demand for titanium and titanium parts over the same time period and categories, including the projected value of such items; 

(3) Identify any grade or category of titanium or titanium 

parts for which the Department’s demand is likely to exceed 

the domestic supply available to the Department; 

(4) Estimate the percentage and value of titanium and titanium parts that are not produced in the United States due to 

exceptions to domestic sourcing requirements applicable to specialty metals in end items or components sourced from qualifying countries and specialty metals contained in commercial 

off the shelf components; 

(5) Identify representative examples of end items or components (such as engine and airframe components) previously 

manufactured in the United States that are no longer obtained 

from the United States industrial base. 

(6) Evaluate the overall impact of section 2533b on the domestic titanium manufacturing and production base; 

(7) Evaluate the impact of exceptions to domestic sourcing in 

section 2533b on the domestic titanium manufacturing and 

production base; and 

(8) Make such recommendations relating to measures to improve the health of the domestic titanium manufacturing and 

industrial base as the Secretary deems appropriate. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
330 

Undefinitized Contractual Actions 

The committee notes that section 809 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requires the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance to ensure the implementation and enforcement of requirements applicable to 

undefinitized contractual actions (UCA). UCAs expose the Department to substantial risk in terms of cost and of contract performance, and section 809 was intended to address the length and proliferation of UCAs. The committee notes that the Department 

issued its guidance in August 2008 and substantially updated it in 

October 2009. This guidance instituted a semi-annual reporting requirement that allows the Department to track UCAs and ensure 

their compliance with the relevant requirements. The committee 

believes that the updated guidance, together with additional modifications adopted in accord with recent Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) recommendations, has worked substantially to address the concerns that led to the enactment of section 809. At the 

same time, the committee was troubled that GAO found several instances where UCAs that qualified for inclusion were not in the 

latest semi-annual report. The committee urges the Department to 

ensure that local commands are informed of, and properly motivated to comply with, the Department’s guidance on UCAs. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ACQUISITION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

Section 801—Disclosure to Litigation Support Contractors 

This section would amend section 2320 of title 10, United States 

Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to disclose technical data 

to a litigation support contractor for the purpose of assisting the 

Department of Defense in preparing for litigation. This section 

would require that the litigation support contractor: use the technical data only for the purpose of fulfilling its contract with the Department; take all reasonable steps to protect the technical data; 

and not use the technical data to compete with the owner of the 

technical data on any government or non-government contract. 

This section would take effect 120 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

Section 802—Designation of F135 and F136 Engine Development 

and Procurement Programs as Major Subprograms 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 30 

days of the date of enactment of this Act, to designate the F135 

and F136 engine development and procurement programs as major 

subprograms in accordance with section 2430a of title 10, United 

States Code, and would require the Secretary to use the milestone 

B decision for the F135 and F136 engine development and procurement programs as the baseline for the reporting requirements referred to in section 2430a(b) of title 10, United States Code. 

This section would specify the application of section 2433a of title 

10, United States Code, (commonly referred to as Nunn-McCurdy) 

to the engine subprograms designated under this section. If an engine subprogram designated under this section were to breach one 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
331 

of the Nunn-McCurdy thresholds for critical cost growth, the Secretary of Defense may satisfy the Nunn-McCurdy requirements for 

reevaluating the engine subprogram if the Secretary fully reevaluated the engine subprogram (including associated reporting in a 

Selected Acquisition Report) as part of the fiscal year 2010 review 

caused by a Nunn-McCurdy breach of the F–35 program. If the 

Secretary does not take such actions for an engine subprogram as 

part of the Nunn-McCurdy review of the F–35 program in fiscal 

year 2010, or if future program changes result in unit cost growth 

that exceeds a Nunn-McCurdy critical cost growth threshold, an 

engine subprogram would still be subject to the requirements of 

section 2433a of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 803—Conforming Amendments Relating to Inclusion of 

Major Subprograms to Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

Under Various Acquisition-Related Requirements 

This section would amend several sections of title 10, United 

States Code, to clarify the application of various acquisition-related 

requirements to major subprograms of major defense acquisition 

programs. Major subprograms are designated pursuant to section 

2340a of title 10, United States Code. This section would cover 

major subprograms under the certification requirements for milestone A of section 2366a and the certification requirements for 

milestone B of 2366b of title 10, United States Code. This section 

would also cover major subprograms under the operational test and 

evaluation requirements of section 2399 and the independent lifecycle cost estimate and manpower estimate requirements of section 

2434 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 804—Enhancement of Department of Defense Authority To 

Respond to Combat and Safety Emergencies Through Rapid Acquisition and Deployment of Urgently Needed Supplies 

This section would amend section 806 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107– 

314), as amended by section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108– 

375), to expand the Department of Defense’s ability to use the 

rapid acquisition authority provided under section 806 of Public 

Law 107–314 to respond to combat and safety emergencies. This 

section would extend the authority by allowing the authority to be 

used to: 

(1) Acquire supplies in addition to items of equipment; 

(2) Prevent casualties in addition to addressing causes of fatalities; and 

(3) Purchase up to $200.0 million in supplies, annually, an 

increase of $100.0 million. 

Section 805—Prohibition on Contracts with Entities Engaging in 

Commercial Activity in the Energy Sector of Iran 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into any contract with an entity that engages in commercial activity in the energy sector of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
332 

SUBTITLE B—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING

AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 811—Extension of Authority To Procure Certain Fibers; 

Limitation on Specification 

This section would amend section 829 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to procure fire-resistant rayon fiber for the production of uniforms. This section would 

also amend section 829 to prohibit the issuance of any solicitation 

which specifies the use of fire-resistant rayon fiber. 

Section 812—Small Arms Production Industrial Base Matters 

This section would strike subsection (c) of section 2473 of title 10, 

United States Code, which narrowly defines the small arms production industrial base as consisting of only three manufacturers. This 

section would also require full and open competition for any small 

arms parts procurement program. 

The committee is concerned about the potential atrophy of the 

existing qualified military specification producers currently comprising the small arms production industrial base as well as respective vendors’ industrial capacity, and believes this could create an 

undue risk to warfighters in the event a production surge would be 

needed to meet requirements. The committee recognizes the need 

to preserve the critical elements of the small arms production industrial base and notes the benefits full and open competition could 

provide, particularly in the areas of small arms technological innovation and more competitive pricing in small arms and critical 

small arms parts manufacturing. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to maintain stewardship of the established small 

arms production industrial base, which has demonstrated high 

quality and performance. 

Section 813—Additional Definition Relating to Production of 

Specialty Metals Within the United States 

This section would amend section 2533b of title 10, United States 

Code, to clarify the definition of the term ‘‘produced’’ used in that 

section. This section would define ‘‘produced’’ to mean ‘‘melted, or 

processed in a manner that results in physical or chemical property 

changes that are the equivalent of melting.’’ The term would not 

include finishing processes such as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, tempering, grinding, or shaving. 

SUBTITLE C—STUDIES AND REPORTS

Section 821—Studies To Analyze Alternative Models for Acquisition and Funding of Technologies Supporting Network-Centric 

Operations 

This section would require an independent federally funded research and development center and the Joint Staff to carry out concurrent studies that analyze alternative models for acquisition and 

funding of interconnected systems for network centric operations 

and recommend changes from the present service-based approach. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
333 

Section 822—Annual Joint Report and Comptroller General Review 

on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 

This section would amend the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) by adding a new 

section 865 that would require the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the United States Agency 

for International Development (USAID) to annually submit to the 

relevant committees of Congress (as those committees are defined 

in section 864 of Public Law 110–181) a joint report on United 

States contracts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic 

of Afghanistan. The report would include information on any significant developments or issues with respect to contracts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan during the 12-month reporting period. The report 

would also include a description of the agencies’ plans for strengthening interagency coordination of contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan and in future contingency operations. 

This section would also require the Comptroller General to review the joint report and interagency coordination of contracting in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and submit to the relevant committees of 

Congress a report on such review. The Comptroller General would 

be required to review how the agencies are using the data contained in the common databases established pursuant to section 

861(b)(4) of Public Law 110–181 and assess the agencies’ plans for 

strengthening interagency coordination of contracting in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and future contingency operations. This section would 

require the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 

Administrator of USAID to provide the Comptroller General with 

full access to information on contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan for 

the purposes of this review and report. 

Section 823—Extension of Comptroller General Review and Report 

on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 

This section would amend section 863 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to extend, for fiscal year 2011, the requirement for the Comptroller General to conduct a review and report on contracting in the Republic 

of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Section 824—Interim Report on Review of Impact of Covered 

Subsidies on Acquisition of KC–45 Aircraft 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the congressional defense committees an interim report on any review of a covered subsidy under section 886 of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) within 60 days after the initiation of the review. 

Section 825—Reports on Joint Capabilities Integration and 

Development System 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and a federally funded research and development center selected by the Secretary to analyze the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to identify improvements in the JCIDS process. This section would require the Secretary to submit reports on 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
334 

both analyses within six months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, and would also require the Secretary to begin implementing a 

plan to address problems in JCIDS within one year after the date 

of enactment. This section would require that problems identified 

in the analyses also be addressed as part of a program to manage 

performance in establishing joint military requirements and would 

allow the consolidation of the plan into any report relating to a program to manage performance in establishing joint military requirements. The committee notes that legislation which has passed the 

House of Representatives, the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (Improve Acquisition Act of 2010), includes a provision, section 103, that requires the establishment of a program to 

manage performance in establishing joint military requirements. 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 831—Extension of Authority for Defense Acquisition 

Challenge Program 

This section would extend the expiration date of the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program from 2012 to 2017. 

Section 832—Energy Savings Performance Contracts 

This section would clarify the application of the enhanced competition requirements for task and delivery order contracts included in section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to energy savings performance contracts. Energy savings performance contracts are developed using a detailed energy audit and through the negotiation of 

guaranteed energy savings between the contracting agency and the 

contractor. The committee recognizes that this process entails significant upfront costs, which are intended to be recouped out of the 

contract after it is awarded. This section would clarify the requirements for the notification of potential bidders and for the review 

of expressions of interest from bidders prior to entering into an energy savings performance contract and would deem such requirements to satisfy the requirements of section 843, which is codified 

at section 2304c(d) of title 10, United States Code, and section 

253j(d) of title 41, United States Code. 

Section 833—Consideration of Sustainable Practices in 

Procurement of Products and Services 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

and issue guidance directing the secretary of each military department and the head of each defense agency to consider sustainable 

practices in the procurement of products and services. This section 

would not apply to the acquisition of weapon systems. 

Section 834—Definition of Materials Critical to National Security 

This section would amend section 187 of title 10, United States 

Code, to clarify the definition of materials critical to national security. The revised definition would ensure that strategic materials 

whose supply to the Department of Defense can potentially be disrupted are monitored and addressed by the Strategic Materials 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
335 

Protection Board established under section 187 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Section 835—Determination of Strategic or Critical Rare Earth 

Materials for Defense Applications 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to undertake 

an assessment of the supply chain for rare earth materials and determine which rare earth materials, if any, are strategic materials 

and which are materials critical to national security. Following 

such an assessment, the Secretary would be required to develop a 

plan to ensure the long-term availability of rare earth materials 

identified as strategic materials or materials critical to national security, with a goal of establishing domestic sources for such materials by December 31, 2015. In developing such a plan, the Secretary would be required to: consider including such materials in 

the National Defense Stockpile; identify, in consultation with the 

United States Trade Representative, any trade practices that limit 

the Secretary’s ability to meet the goals of the plan; assess financing options, such as loan guarantees, to private entities to provide 

the capacity required to ensure the availability of such materials; 

evaluate the benefits of funding under Title III of the Defense Production Act (Public Law 81–774); consider research and development funding; assess other means of establishing domestic sources 

by December 31, 2015; and develop a plan to eliminate supplychain vulnerability by the earliest date practicable for materials for 

which, after exhausting all prior considerations, a domestic source 

cannot be established by December 31, 2015. This section would require the Secretary to submit a report, within 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on 

Financial Services, and the House Committee on Ways and Means, 

containing the findings of the assessment and plan. 

Section 836—Review of National Security Exception to Competition 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review the 

implementation of the national security exception to full and open 

competition provided in section 2304(c)(6) of title 10, United States 

Code (commonly known as the Competition in Contracting Act). 

The review would include an examination of: the pattern of usage; 

the range of items or services being acquired; the justification and 

approval process; compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; issues relating to follow-on procurements; and possible additional uses for the exception. The committee intends that the examination of possible additional uses in this review would include, at 

a minimum, a review of any legislative proposals requesting national security-related exceptions to full and open competition submitted to the Department of Defense’s Office of Legislative Counsel 

in the five years preceding the date of enactment of this Act. This 

section would require the Secretary to submit a report on the review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Finally, this section would require the Secretary, upon completion of the review, to submit draft regulations 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
336 

relating to the implementation of the national security exception to 

full and open competition to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

Section 837—Inclusion of Bribery in Disclosure Requirements of 

the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 

This section would amend section 872(c) of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) to include information about a federal contractor relating to violations of any law relating to bribery of a country 

which is a signatory of the Convention on Combating Bribery of 

Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions in 

the federal awardee performance and integrity information system. 

Section 838—Requirement for Entities With Facility Clearances 

That Are Not Under Foreign Ownership Control or Influence 

Mitigation 

This section would require a corporation holding a facility clearance granted by the Department of Defense that is not subject to 

foreign ownership control or influence to establish a government 

security committee to ensure that such corporation maintains policies and procedures that meet requirements under the national industrial security program. The committee notes that corporations 

subject to foreign ownership control or influence are already required, in most cases, to have a government security committee. 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Advisory Panel on Improving Interagency National Security 

Coordination 

Section 1054 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) authorized the 

Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Administrator 

of the United States Agency for International Development 

(USAID) to jointly establish a standing advisory panel to ‘‘advise, 

review, and make recommendations on ways to improve coordination among the Department of Defense, the Department of State, 

and USAID on matters relating to national security, including reviewing their respective roles and responsibilities.’’ The committee 

believes this panel will provide invaluable objective information 

and recommendations to the agencies, as well as to Congress, about 

how to improve coordination and collaboration. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 

Administrator of USAID to stand up this important panel immediately. The committee further encourages the Secretaries and Administrator to task this panel with studying and reporting recommendations on how the agencies should collaborate on creating 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
337 

interagency training, education, and rotational assignment opportunities for their personnel, and how the agencies should 

incentivize their personnel and organizations to enable and encourage such opportunities. 

Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage 

The committee continues to be concerned about the implications 

and potential consequences of global climate change. However, one 

of the possible benefits associated with climate change is the opening of a Northwest Passage and the potential expansion of trade 

through the Arctic Ocean. The Department of the Navy has indicated that polar ice has decreased by 67 percent since 1979 and 

that the Arctic Ocean is projected to be ice free for short periods 

of time starting in the year 2038. The committee is encouraged 

that the Department of the Navy, working in concert with the respective combatant commanders, has prepared an Arctic Roadmap 

to address future operations but believes that additional effort 

needs to be placed on this strategic capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by May 30, 2011, that includes 

the following: 

(1) An assessment of the strategic national security objectives and restrictions in the Arctic Region; 

(2) An assessment on mission capabilities required to support the strategic national security objectives and a timeline to 

obtain such capabilities; 

(3) An assessment of an amended unified command plan that 

addresses opportunities of obtaining continuity of effort in the 

Arctic Ocean by a single combatant commander; 

(4) An assessment of the basing infrastructure required to 

support Arctic strategic objectives, including the need for a 

deep-water port in the Arctic; and 

(5) An assessment of the status of and need for icebreakers 

to determine whether icebreakers provide important or required mission capabilities to support Arctic strategic national 

security objectives, and an assessment of the minimum and optimal number of icebreakers that may be needed. 

Augmentation of Army Brigade Combat Teams To Advise and 

Assist Foreign Security Forces 

In recent years, the Department of Defense has created hundreds 

of training teams using service members from all of the military 

services to mentor, advise, and partner with security forces in both 

the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

These teams have totaled up to 10,000 U.S. military personnel per 

rotation, most often from the ground forces. While these teams act 

as units, they are not units that exist in any of the services’ doctrinal structure. Instead, they are typically sourced with personnel 

who were identified individually, generally company- and fieldgrade officers and senior non-commissioned officers who are taken 

from other units. 

In the past, the Army faced some difficulty in sourcing these 

teams without affecting the readiness of its overall force. As a result of these challenges, the Army has shifted its approach and is 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
338 

now replacing many of the individual training teams in Iraq with 

brigade combat teams that are specially augmented with leaders to 

carry out the advisory and assistance mission, referred to as advisory and assistance brigades. Similarly, in Afghanistan, the U.S. 

military is planning for the use of units similar to advisory and assistance brigades, referred to as mobility brigades-security force assistance, for this mission. While still a work in progress, the Army 

projects that using brigades with an augmentation for the advisory 

and assistance mission, instead of individual training teams, will: 

decrease the burden on the services of having to identify and 

source individuals; improve command and control for the training 

mission; and allow for improved mission effectiveness. 

The committee is aware of the Government Accountability Office’s prior evaluations of the readiness of U.S. forces and directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to review the Army’s 

plans for augmenting its brigade combat teams to perform the advisory and assistance mission and the use of the teams to support 

ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to report the results of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services. This review should 

evaluate: the extent to which the Army has defined intended roles 

and missions for these brigades, including for ongoing operations or 

other commitments; the extent to which the Army has defined requirements for these types of brigade combat teams, including personnel, equipment, and training requirements; and the Army’s ability to source these requirements, including any impacts on overall 

readiness. 

Certification and Accreditation Process for Information Technology 

Programs 

The committee understands the certification and accreditation 

(C&A) process for information technology (IT) programs is a critical 

component of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) information assurance posture. The committee is concerned that C&A processes 

have neither kept pace with the rapid pace of technological 

changes, nor the marginal changes in DOD policy. For example, as 

the Department of Defense implements the alternative acquisition 

process for IT systems required by section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), 

it should also examine the C&A process to ensure that the entire 

acquisition and fielding process is optimized. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to evaluate the C&A process and make changes as needed to keep pace 

with the existing and projected technical environment. The committee supports the July 2009 DOD memorandum detailing the implementation of Information System Certification and Accreditation 

Reciprocity as an important step in updating the C&A process. The 

committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider certain additional actions as it reviews the C&A process, including: 

(1) Requiring automated software vulnerability analysis 

throughout the development and deployment lifecycle of an IT 

system; 

(2) Requiring that all category 1 software vulnerabilities are 

remediated; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
339 

(3) Implementing a process for shielding web applications in 

a runtime mode to protect them from exploitation in situations 

where it is not possible to remediate existing software 

vulnerabilities of legacy web-enabled national security systems; 

and 

(4) Enhancing the testing and evaluation process in order to 

evaluate code execution as a component of the accreditation decision. 

Common Alignment of World Regions in the Internal Organization 

of Departments and Agencies With International Responsibilities 

The committee is concerned that inconsistent regional alignments in the internal organization of departments and agencies increase the difficulty of executing interagency national security policy. In February 2009, the Assistant to the President for National 

Security Affairs, General James L. Jones, announced that the Administration would implement a common regional alignment. The 

committee notes that no action has been taken to date. The committee supports the National Security Advisor’s vision and encourages the President to commission a study to assess the need for 

and implications of a common alignment of world regions in the internal organization of departments and agencies with international 

responsibilities. The committee encourages this study to assess the 

problems resulting from different geographic boundaries within the 

various agencies, potential obstacles to implementing a common 

alignment, and the advantages and disadvantages of a common 

alignment. The study should also provide a determination by the 

President as to what action the administration intends to take on 

this matter and when, and what legislative action, if any, would be 

required by Congress. 

Intelligence Information Sharing 

The committee is concerned that Department of Defense intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program guidance 

does not provide sufficient overarching direction and priorities for 

sharing intelligence information across the defense intelligence 

community. As highlighted in a recent Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report requested by the committee, the military services do not have a coordinated acquisition strategy, resulting in the 

current lack of ability and capacity of the military services to fully 

share ISR information collected by the warfighter. Each military 

service has proceeded at its own pace, and continues to proceed at 

its own pace, to conform to standards that facilitate sharing of ISR 

information. The committee believes that until all participants in 

the defense intelligence community successfully share intelligence 

information, inefficiencies will continue, and data collection efforts 

may be unnecessarily duplicative, with the result being shortfalls 

in the effectiveness of efforts to support the warfighter. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

implement the recommendation of GAO report, GAO–10–265NI, 

which recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and the military service secretaries, develop intelligence information sharing guidance, such as a concept of operations, and to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
340 

provide such direction and prioritization to the intelligence community. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by September 1, 2010, on the actions 

planned or taken to implement this recommendation. 

Finally, the committee requests the Comptroller General evaluate the Secretary’s report and determine whether it is consistent 

with, and adequately addresses the recommendation, and to provide the committee with an update on the conclusions of this evaluation as soon as it is practicable. 

Personnel Management Policy and Plans Affecting Special 

Operations Forces 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) has yet to finalize DOD Directive 5100.01, titled 

‘‘Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components’’, that establishes a means by which the Commander of U.S. 

Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) could coordinate with 

the service secretaries for matters related to Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) personnel management policy and plans as they relate to accessions, assignments, compensation, promotions, professional development, readiness, retention, sustainment, and training 

of all SOF personnel. The committee is aware that each existing 

service-specific memorandum of agreement that defines service responsibilities and support to USSOCOM is being reviewed, and is 

encouraged that the Department of the Navy has recently completed its review including an appendix that defines responsibilities 

and relationships for personnel management of SOF assigned to 

USSOCOM. 

The committee appreciates this service-specific approach, but is 

concerned that individual service reviews and subsequent updated 

or enacted agreements that defines relationships with respect to 

SOF personnel management may be inconsistent across the services. The committee therefore encourages the Secretary of Defense 

to finalize Directive 5100.01 within 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act and continue to review the aforementioned 

service-specific agreements to ensure a holistic approach with respect to personnel management policy and plans that affect SOF 

and USSOCOM. The committee believes that such agreements 

should establish a means by which the service secretaries and the 

Commander of USSOCOM can consult with one another to manage 

and mitigate concerns across the entire special operations community as they relate to accessions, assignments, compensation, promotions, professional development, readiness, retention, 

sustainment, and training. 

Senior Workforce in the Business Transformation Agency 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009, the committee expressed concern about the lack of permanent billets for senior executive service staff within BTA and the 

deleterious effect that would have on hiring and promotions within 

the agency. In the past two years, the committee notes that no corVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
341 

rective actions were taken, resulting in the loss of senior staff due 

to the lack of promotion opportunities. Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Chief Management Officer and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide written 

notification of compliance to the House Committee on Armed Services on actions being taken to address the committee’s concerns 

within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Strategic Management Plan 

The committee is aware that the Strategic Management Plan 

(SMP) required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) is a document that continues 

to evolve since it was originally submitted in July 2008. The committee applauds the Department of Defense’s efforts to develop this 

congressional reporting requirement into a management tool to improve the performance of the business functions of the Department. 

The committee encourages the Department to strengthen the management framework in the SMP and further refine the data that 

is collected and included in the report to make it an even more useful performance analysis tool. For example, the SMP should incorporate performance goals captured by other documents, such as the 

Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan and the reports 

required by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 

2002 (Public Law 107–347). The committee also recommends that 

the SMP include a number of other performance measures, such as 

information sharing standards, facility recapitalization rates, and 

tracking for critical workforce specialties within the Department. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Section 901—Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and Marine Corps 

This section would designate the Department of the Navy as the 

Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the title 

of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps. 

This section would formally recognize the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine 

Corps and the Marine Corps’ status as an equal partner with the 

Navy. 

Section 902—Realignment of the Organizational Structure of the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense to Carry Out the Reduction Required by Law in the Number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense 

This section would amend certain statutory provisions in United 

States Code related to the organizational structure of the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD). These changes would reduce the 

number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and implement the 

realignment of the organizational structure of OSD as directed by 

section 906 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010. These changes would provide a logical construction for 

the organization of the most senior officials within OSD by removVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
342 

ing the wide variance in the status and stature of officials with the 

same title, and providing the same title to officials of generally 

equal status and stature. Additionally, this section would remove 

the prescription on certain specific titles of officials and organizations within OSD allowing the Department to provide a more consistent, recognizable application across the entire enterprise. 

Section 903—Unified Medical Command 

This section would provide legal authority to the Secretary of Defense to establish a unified medical command to provide medical 

services to the armed forces and other health care beneficiaries of 

the Department of Defense as defined in chapter 55 of title 10, 

United States Code. This section also would require the Secretary 

to develop a comprehensive plan to establish a unified medical 

command. Further, this section would amend title 10, United 

States Code, to specify that one of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense will be for Health Affairs, responsible for health care policy 

formulation and oversight. 

SUBTITLE B—SPACE ACTIVITIES

Section 911—Integrated Space Architectures 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to maintain the capability to conduct 

integrated national security space architecture planning, development, coordination, and analysis. 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) space architecture function 

was originally established in 1995 as the Department of Defense 

Office of the Space Architect (DODOSA). In 1998, DODOSA became the Office of the National Security Space Architect, and in 

2004 was combined with the National Security Space Integration 

Directorate by the DOD Executive Agent for Space to become the 

National Security Space Office (NSSO). Its purpose was to bridge 

defense and intelligence space capabilities, programs, and organizations by developing integrated national security space architectures 

and provide recommendations to guide space decisions and investments. 

The committee is aware of ongoing discussions within the Department regarding the disposition of the NSSO. However, absent 

a clear mandate to conduct integrated space architecture planning, 

development, coordination, and analysis that is independent or outside of any individual military service or intelligence community organization, the committee is concerned that space architecture 

work will be stove-piped and will not reflect enterprise-wide interests and priorities. The committee believes senior decision makers 

should have the benefit of an independent capability to oversee, assess, and coordinate, where appropriate, the national security space 

activities of the defense and intelligence communities. The committee recognizes that the preponderance of national security space 

expertise resides in the individual military services and intelligence 

community organizations, and believes this expertise can be effectively leveraged to support enterprise-wide architecting. 

This section would not be intended to limit rapid acquisition efforts such as Operationally Responsive Space (ORS); however, the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
343 

committee does endorse efforts that expand user access to ORS capabilities and data. 

Given the challenges associated with space acquisitions, the expensive nature of modern satellite development programs, and a 

limited cadre of space professionals, the committee believes that 

major decisions regarding national security space should be approached in a holistic and strategic manner to identify opportunities to: coordinate and cooperate on space capabilities, technologies, 

and resources; leverage expertise; promote greater information 

sharing; and minimize duplication wherever feasible. 

SUBTITLE C—INTELLIGENCE-RELATED MATTERS

Section 921—5-Year Extension of Authority for Secretary of Defense To Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities 

This section would amend existing statutory authority for the 

use by the Department of Defense of intelligence commercial activities as security for intelligence collection activities by granting the 

Secretary of Defense a 5-year extension of authority to approve 

such activities. 

Section 431 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1991 (Public Law 102–88) first granted the Secretary authority to 

approve the use of commercial activities as security for intelligence 

collection activities. Since that time, Congress has extended this 

authority six times, in increments of two, three and four years, 

with the current authority set to expire on December 31, 2010. 

Regular reports to Congress enable effective congressional oversight and make possible a 5-year extension of this authority. 

Section 922—Space and Counterspace Intelligence Analysis 

This section would require the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to designate a lead integrator for foreign space and 

counterspace defense intelligence analysis, and to authorize the 

lead integrator to conduct original intelligence analysis and production within the areas of responsibility of such lead integrator. This 

section would also require a notification to the congressional defense committees and intelligence committees of any changes in the 

designation of the lead integrator. 

The National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) has 

been the designated lead integrator for space and counterspace intelligence. However, the Defense Intelligence Agency recently 

issued guidance prohibiting NASIC from conducting original intelligence analysis in certain counterspace mission areas despite its 

technical expertise and historical knowledge. 

The committee believes it is important for a lead integrator to 

maintain technical proficiency in the areas for which it is given 

lead integrator responsibilities. This proficiency can be maintained 

by conducting original intelligence analysis, when necessary or appropriate, and also developing competitive, or alternative, analysis 

consistent with the objectives of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
344 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 931—Revisions to the Board of Regents for the Uniformed 

Services University of the Health Sciences 

This section would amend section 2113a of title 10, United States 

Code, to add four individuals appointed by the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services to the Board of Regents for 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 

Section 932—Increased Flexibility for Combatant Commander 

Initiative Fund 

This section would amend section 166(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to allow the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

fund up to $10.0 million of research, development, test, and evaluation initiatives from funds authorized under the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund. 

Section 933—Two-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Temporary Waiver of Reimbursement of Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies 

This section would amend section 941(b) of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) to extend for two fiscal years the temporary authority for the five Regional Centers for Security Studies of the Department of Defense to waive the reimbursement of costs required 

under section 184(f) of title 10, United States Code, for personnel 

of nongovernmental organizations and international organizations 

to participate in activities of the centers. 

Section 934—Additional Requirements for Quadrennial Roles and 

Missions Review in 2011 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to consider 

information operations, strategic communications, and detention 

and interrogation activities as part of the 2011 Quadrennial Roles 

and Missions Review required by section 118b of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Section 935—Codification of Congressional Notification Requirement Before Permanent Relocation of Any United States Military 

Unit Stationed Outside the United States 

This section would amend chapter 6 of title 10, United States 

Code, by inserting a new section 162a that would require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days before the permanent relocation of a military unit stationed outside of the United 

States. That notification would include a description of the impact 

that relocation would have on United States national security policy. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
345 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

The budget request contained $1.13 billion for drug interdiction 

and counter-drug activities, in addition to $107.4 million, for operational tempo, which is contained within the operating budgets of 

the military services. The budget is organized in fiscal year 2011 

to address four broad national priorities: (1) international support; 

(2) domestic support; (3) intelligence and technology support; and 

(4) demand reduction. 

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2011 

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows (in millions of U.S. dollars): 

FY11 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request .................................... $1,131.4 

International Support ...................................................................................... $580.9 

Domestic Support ............................................................................................ $216.8 

Intelligence and Technology Support ............................................................. $193.6 

Demand Reduction .......................................................................................... $140.0 

FY11 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request Recommendation ...... $1,131.4 

COUNTERTERRORISM

Counterterrorism Initiatives 

The committee notes that the United States has made significant 

gains in the effort to disrupt, defeat, and dismantle al Qa’ida and 

its extremist allies. According to open sources, over the course of 

2009, the United States was able to successfully kill or capture 

hundreds of al Qa’ida fighters and members of affiliated organizations, a substantial increase over prior years. The committee further notes that the effort to enlist regional allies in the fight 

against al Qa’ida and its extremist allies has also led to notable 

successes, in particular the recent capture of the second in command of the Afghan Taliban, a former Taliban finance minister, 

and two Taliban ‘‘shadow governors’’ in the Islamic Republic of 

Pakistan. The Republic of Yemen has also taken effective, though 

as yet incomplete, measures to eliminate the threat from al Qa’ida 

in the Arabian Peninsula. The committee believes that the Administration as a whole, and in particular the men and women of the 

United States military deserve our thanks and congratulations for 

this significant progress. 

The committee believes, however, that much work remains to be 

done before the fight against al Qa’ida is finished and the threat 

to the United States is eliminated. The committee has focused its 

efforts in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act in four 

main areas. First, the committee has acted to improve force protection from terrorists and their allies at home and abroad. Second, 

the committee has enhanced the capacity of the United States military, particularly the United States Special Operations Forces 

(USSOF), who have been integral in successes to date, to act directly against terrorist organizations. Third, the committee has 

built upon past efforts and begun new initiatives to counter extremist ideology and improve cooperation in the fight against al 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
346 

Qa’ida and its allies. Fourth, the committee has enhanced or expanded several critical authorities related to counterterrorism. 

To better protect our troops at home, the committee has provided $100.0 million in this title to implement the initial recommendations of the Fort Hood Follow-On Review conducted by the Department of Defense in the wake of the shooting at Fort Hood that 

killed 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounded 30 other people. 

The Follow-On Review was charged with identifying and addressing possible deficiencies in force protection and the identification of 

Department of Defense employees who could pose a credible threat 

to themselves or others as well as other related issues. In a related 

effort in this title, the committee has required the Secretary of Defense to begin an additional, more comprehensive review of force 

protection. This review will address such issues as standoff distances for building, protective standards related to weapons of 

mass destruction, standards for access to Department of Defense 

bases, and enhanced information sharing between federal agencies 

and intelligence agencies to better identify threats, including those 

that might originate from persons who have access to Department 

of Defense bases. Finally, to address force protection concerns in 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee has included 

the authority in title 15 of this Act for the Secretary of Defense to 

obligate up to $200.0 million to address urgent force protection 

needs in Afghanistan and to utilize rapid acquisition authority in 

carrying out this function. The committee believes that these efforts, taken together, will substantially reduce potential 

vulnerabilities of our servicemen and women at home and on the 

battlefield. 

The committee has also acted to enhance the ability of the 

USSOF to carry on the fight against al Qa’ida and its extremist allies. These forces have been on the front lines of this fight, and the 

efforts of USSOF have been integral in weakening that terrorist organization. To further enhance the ability of USSOF to find, fix, 

and eliminate terrorists who threaten the United States, the committee has provided nearly $10.0 billion for USSOF and counterterrorism capabilities throughout the bill, which represents an increase of almost $800.0 million over fiscal year 2009. Of this number, $205.0 million is provided to address unfunded requirements 

identified by the United States Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM). In title 12 of this Act, the committee has also provided a 25 percent increase in authority for the so-called Section 

1208 program, which permits the Secretary of Defense to provide 

assistance to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals 

facilitating military operations by USSOF to combat terrorism. Finally, the committee notes that General Stanley McChrystal, 

among others, has commented on the urgent need to develop language skills in the United States military to enhance the capacity 

to conduct counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. The committee has 

responded to this need and placed a renewed focus on the development of critical language and cultural skills among USSOF, urging 

the Department of Defense to provide Foreign Language Proficiency Pay in a uniform manner for all members of USSOF who 

have achieved a 1/1 and 1+ standard of proficiency and directing 

the Commander of USSOCOM to brief the committee on his command’s cultural immersion objectives, challenges, and strategies. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
347 

The committee has also acted on a variety of fronts to counter 

the ideology of extremists, to curb their ability to use the internet 

for recruiting and fundraising, and to enhance United States and 

allied efforts to infiltrate and combat terrorist networks. The committee has provided additional funds in several ways to focus research on efforts to counter terrorists’ ideology: providing an increase of $5.0 million for the Minerva Initiative in title 2 of this 

Act, an increase of $10.0 million for counter-ideology programs and 

to address science and technology gaps in DOD activities to counter 

adversarial ideologies, and a total of $9.0 million to support the social science researchers who are assisting the Department of Defense in understanding the cultural and ideological basis of our adversaries in the current fights. This year, the committee has taken 

additional steps to counter the use of the internet by extremists. 

To gain a more full understanding of those activities already conducted by the Department and to ensure that those actions are coordinated, the committee has directed the Secretary of Defense to 

report on the activities taken by the Department in this area. The 

committee has also provided an additional $2.5 million in title 2 of 

this Act in the Combating Terrorism Technical Support program 

for an extensive study to determine the state of the virtual media 

environment occupied by today’s extremist and terrorist enemies. 

Finally, the committee has included two new initiatives in this 

year’s National Defense Authorization Act designed to enhance the 

ability of the United States and allied forces to infiltrate and combat enemy forces. Therefore, the committee directed the Secretary 

of Defense to institutionalize the Legacy program and similar programs. The Legacy and similar programs, based on a successful 

European model, assisted with the development of an indigenous 

capacity to infiltrate and disrupt local terrorist networks. The committee has also noted that many innovative programs for mapping 

complex and social landscapes, understanding relationships among 

key actors in insurgencies, identifying the key goals of 

marginalized groups that could lead them to be recruited by terrorists, and integrating whole-of-government approaches in support of 

indigenous institutions to reduce the appeal of terrorist groups 

have failed in the past for lack of institutionalized support. The 

committee notes that it is precisely this sort of information that is 

vital for understanding the environment in which terrorist groups 

live and operate, and therefore is of great benefit in the effort to 

eliminate such terrorist groups. The committee has therefore directed the Secretary to provide a plan by September 1, 2010, for 

supporting and sustaining the variety of innovative programs in 

these areas. 

The committee has acted to expand several critical authorities 

used by the Department of Defense in combating terrorism. The 

committee expands the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 

build the capacity of foreign military forces, the ‘‘1206 program,’’ by 

increasing funds by $150.0 million over fiscal year 2010 levels. Out 

of the funds provided by the committee for the 1206 program, not 

less than $75.0 million would be used to enhance the capacity of 

the Yemeni security forces to combat al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist group that attempted to down Northwest Airlines flight 253 over Detroit, Michigan on December 25, 2009. The 

committee has also extended and expanded the Coalition Support 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
348 

Program, now allowing reimbursements to any nation who provides 

logistical and military assistance to support the fight against al 

Qa’ida, the Taliban, and other militant extremists in Pakistan, in 

addition to the current authority to reimburse nations for logistical 

and military support for United States military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee has extended the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund authority by one year to ensure that the transition of the program from 

the Department of Defense to the Department of State is conducted 

smoothly and without an interruption to the vital aid intended to 

assist Pakistan in combating militant extremists. Finally the committee requires that the next Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review examine critical core missions relating to counterterrorism including: strategic communications; information operations; and interrogation and detention. 

The committee believes that the initiatives outlined above, combined with the host of other programs and authorizations provided 

in this bill, will substantially enhance the ability of the brave men 

and women of the United States military to protect themselves at 

home and abroad and will provide them with the additional tools 

they need to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qa’ida 

and their extremist allies. 

Countering Extremist Use of the Internet 

The committee is concerned that while extremist groups are becoming increasingly more sophisticated in their use of the internet, 

the U.S. Government has been slow to mobilize an effective 

counter-response to the proliferation of extremist websites that are 

used for recruiting, training, propaganda, and fundraising. The 

committee understands that there are a range of significant policy, 

legal, technical, and management challenges to dealing with the increasing use of the internet to promulgate extremist views. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act a report on the actions that the 

Department of Defense is taking to counter extremists’ use of the 

internet. More details on this requirement can be found in the classified annex accompanying this report. 

Countering Network-Based Threats 

The committee applauds the Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) 

program achievements supporting both unconventional and irregular approaches to warfare. The committee is especially interested 

in the ‘‘Attack the Network’’ approach used in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under the Legacy program. The doctrinal program was based on a previously successful 

European model and began as a research and development pilot 

project. Proven to be immediately effective in disrupting terrorist 

network activities, saving lives, and building a leave-behind indigenous capability, Legacy successes have been documented and validated in an independent Department of Defense commissioned 

study carried out by the RAND Corporation. 

The committee notes that network-based threats come in many 

forms. Whether in the form of terrorism, insurgencies, narco-trafVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
349 

ficking, organized crime, piracy, or gangs, these networks are a 

persistent danger that will continue to grow around the world. 

These destructive and illegal networks find sanctuary within indigenous populations around the world and particularly flourish 

where governance and law enforcement is weak. The committee 

cannot emphasize enough that defeating these networks will require the persistent presence, local knowledge, and specialized 

training that a program such as Legacy employs. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to conduct the following activities: 

(1) Assess the applicability of the Legacy program in other 

areas where network-based threats are present or where conditions are conducive to supporting these threats; 

(2) Establish an appropriate management structure within 

the Department for Legacy and other similar programs; 

(3) Coordinate with interagency partners, including but not 

limited to, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, 

the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security to synchronize Legacy with other capacity building and intelligence programs; and 

(4) Develop a plan to institutionalize, within the U.S. Government, the capability necessary to institutionalize and train 

foreign forces to gather and exploit counterinsurgency intelligence at a local level within the U.S. Government. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency Mission and Resourcing 

The committee recognizes that countering the use of weapons of 

mass destruction (WMD) by our adversaries is a national priority, 

and that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) plays a central role in our efforts. The committee is aware that the recent 

Quadrennial Defense Review report calls for increased investment 

in preventing proliferation and countering WMD. The committee is 

also aware that the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency reflects these priorities and requirements. In particular, the budget request for DTRA contained increased investments to secure vulnerable fissile materials worldwide, expand global biological threat reduction initiatives, develop 

arms control monitoring and verification capabilities, combat WMD 

terrorism, develop and acquire technology and train forces to locate 

and identify radiological or nuclear threats, develop post-detonation 

nuclear forensics capabilities, and provide countering WMD reachback support to the warfighter. The committee is supportive of 

these priorities and expects the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to carefully oversee execution of the additional 

funding. 

Rotary-Wing Assets for United States Special Operations Forces 

The committee is aware that rotary-wing aviation assets are critical enablers supporting the armed forces, and in particular United 

States Special Operations Forces (USSOF), engaged in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. The committee is 

aware that rotary-wing shortfalls exist in Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and elsewhere as 

noted in Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
350 

Capabilities (TUTC) hearings and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review (QDR). The committee also notes that the recent personnel 

growth of USSOF has far outpaced the organic rotary-wing capacity of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). 

The committee is encouraged that both the QDR and the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request address service-wide and USSOCOM rotary-wing shortfalls and provide modest but targeted improvements 

in force structure, training, acquisition timelines, and service-lifeextension programs for support to USSOF. The committee is 

pleased that the Department has increasingly leveraged general 

purpose rotary-wing assets to support USSOF worldwide missions 

and requirements. However, the committee remains concerned that 

proposed solutions may not offer timely relief, and that continued 

shortfalls in OEF, OIF and elsewhere may impede operations 

where USSOF presence will continue for the foreseeable future. 

The committee is aware that the Joint Staff’s Review of Helicopter 

Assets (ROHA), as cited in testimony before TUTC, recommended 

significant adjustments in force management of rotary-wing platforms. The committee is aware, however, that the ROHA is presently being updated, and is discouraged that the Department has 

yet to provide the ROHA to the committee despite several requests, 

and despite its citing in official testimony before TUTC. 

The committee believes USSOCOM should take the appropriate 

steps to ensure that rotary aviation assets are appropriately managed and resourced. The committee understands that USSOCOM 

and U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) plan to establish a special operations aviation command to address critical 

needs. The committee is concerned that USSOCOM has not discussed in detail the command’s plans to address its rotary aviation 

needs. The committee therefore encourages the Secretary of Defense, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, 

Low-Intensity Conflict, and Interdependent Capabilities, and the 

Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to continue to aggressively identify and implement solutions such as the expanded 

use of general purpose rotary-wing assets, improvements in USSOF 

rotary-wing organic force structure, accelerated acquisition 

timelines, and the expanded use of non-standard aviation platforms 

and aviation foreign internal defense activities, and to openly communicate solutions, future plans and actions with the congressional 

defense committees. 

Strategies for Countering Irregular Warfare Challenges 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to place 

greater emphasis on pursuing efforts to develop innovative, nonmaterial, and multi-disciplinary methodologies and strategies for 

disrupting irregular and asymmetric threats and threat enablers, 

such as insurgency, radicalization, improvised explosive device activity, threat financing, and associated infrastructures. The committee believes that such approaches could offer broader capabilities to the Department, interagency and international partners, as 

well as better leverage the collective resources of the entire federal 

government to: 

(1) Map the complex social and cultural landscape of areas 

of interest; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
351 

(2) Understand the relationships between centers of power, 

bases of support, and key influencers that provide critical infrastructure and enable violent extremist organizations (VEO); 

(3) Identify common goals among marginalized groups and 

institutions within areas of interest that have the potential to 

be recruited by terrorist groups; 

(4) Integrate whole-of-government approaches in support of 

indigenous groups and institutions to reduce the appeal of local 

terrorist organizations and thus their local effectiveness; and 

(5) Degrade any enabling factors within fragile societies that 

allow for VEOs to flourish. 

The committee notes that the Department, under the auspices of 

the Irregular Warfare Support Program, the Rapid Reaction Technology Office, and the Asymmetric Warfare Group, has developed 

and implemented a few pilot projects to test concepts employing 

non-material, multi-disciplinary methodologies. However, while 

some of these concepts have shown promise, they often fail to reach 

full operational capability. The committee notes that these failures 

occur for various reasons, most notably because of unstable funding 

or lack of proper management, or both. The committee emphasizes 

the need for the Department of Defense, other U.S. Government 

agencies and international partners to pursue, test, and implement 

novel approaches that address the current threat environment. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

congressional defense committees, by September 1, 2010, a plan for 

supporting and sustaining innovative approaches to address the 

stated goals above, including such approaches that incorporate and 

blend legal, law enforcement, intelligence, and military tactics, 

techniques and procedures. 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Center for Strategic Communications and Public Diplomacy 

The committee continues to support the development of capabilities within the U.S. Government to effectively engage with global 

communities. In section 1055 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), 

the committee directed the National Security Council to conduct a 

comprehensive review of strategic communications (SC) and public 

diplomacy (PD) activities within the federal government. A component of that review called for a study of whether to establish an 

independent organization to serve as a critical mass within the 

U.S. Government that would foster intergovernmental and nongovernmental innovation to support various government clients. 

The committee was dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the analysis supporting the response to section 1055. The report required 

by section 1055 does not provide sufficient justification to support 

that conclusion that an independent organization for SC and PD is 

not needed. The committee is aware of 10 other studies since 2003 

that have indicated the need for such an organization, which contradicts the section 1055 report recommendation. The committee 

urges the National Security Council to give due consideration to 

such an option. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
352 

Force Protection Policies 

The January 2010 report by the Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood made a number of critical observations related to underlying contributing factors in the shootings that occurred on November 5, 2009. These factors include the 

fact that no senior Department of Defense (DOD) official is assigned overall responsibility for force protection policy and that 

there is no integrating DOD policy regarding force protection (Finding 3.1); DOD force protection programs and policies are not focused on internal threats (Finding 3.2); there is no formal guidance 

standardizing how to share force protection threat information 

across the services or the combatant commands (Finding 3.4); DOD 

installation access control systems and processes do not incorporate 

behavioral screening strategies and capabilities, and are not configured to detect an insider threat (Finding 3.7). 

These findings recognize that force protection policies have 

evolved over the past two decades, but have not been updated in 

holistic manner to deal with changing organizational responsibilities and an expansion of the threat spectrum to include those emanating from within the base perimeter as well as from without. As 

the scope of interested parties in ensuring force protection has also 

grown, it is clear to the committee that current policies and procedures have not kept pace with this evolving threat environment. 

The committee recognizes the need for a comprehensive review and 

clarification of force protection policies and guidance, and has included a provision to address these concerns elsewhere in this Act. 

Funding of National Security Requirements 

The committee supports the goal of building and funding a balanced United States national security strategy. The committee is 

concerned that current levels of national security spending across 

defense, homeland security, and non-defense foreign engagement 

programs strain to meet the national security requirements of the 

United States, especially in programs external to the Department 

of Defense. 

The committee encourages the President, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to develop and 

implement measures aimed at improving coordination of security 

policy and budget planning in order to improve cooperation and 

further national security goals. The committee notes that such efforts should include the consideration of a unified set of national 

security priorities. 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center 

The committee is aware that the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Department of State and the Department of 

Justice, is chartered to operate the interagency Human Smuggling 

and Trafficking Center (HSTC). Its purpose is to foster greater integration of U.S. Government efforts to counter migrant smuggling, 

trafficking in persons, and clandestine terrorist travel. HSTC carries out this mission though the broad dissemination of all-source 

information, preparation of strategic assessments, identification of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
353 

issues for enhancing interagency coordination, and coordination of 

interagency initiatives. 

The committee believes that some of the capabilities of HSTC 

could provide valuable support for certain global missions of the 

Department of Defense, and in particular the U.S. Special Operations Command. The committee encourages the Department of 

Defense to find additional ways to increase cooperation with HSTC 

in areas of common interest in which the Department of Defense 

has personnel with particular skills and expertise, such as in analysis of international smuggling routes, social networks, terrorist financing, and document exploitation. 

Policy and Guidance for Defense Support of Civil Authorities 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

approach toward meeting its defense support of civil authorities, or 

civil support, mission has been evolving since prior to the terrorist 

attacks on September 11, 2001, and continues to evolve today. The 

committee notes that the recent Quadrennial Defense Review report revealed a new approach to consequence management response forces. Specifically, the 2nd and 3rd Consequence Management Response Forces will be replaced with smaller units focused 

on providing command, control and communications capabilities for 

Title 10 follow-on forces, and the Department will draw on existing 

National Guard forces to build a Homeland Response Force in each 

of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency regions. The 

committee recognizes the potential for this organizational construct 

to strengthen the links between federal, state and local authorities. 

While supportive of these recent changes, the committee is concerned that civil support policy and guidance has not kept pace 

with the Department’s evolving approaches to meeting the civil 

support mission. A recent Comptroller General report (GAO–10– 

386) noted ‘‘a lack of alignment across DOD’s policies, strategy, and 

doctrine for its civil support mission, making it difficult to determine DOD’s capability requirements.’’ For example, at least six 

DOD directives relevant to civil support pre-date the establishment 

of the United States Northern Command, the entity currently responsible for planning, organizing, and executing homeland defense 

and civil support missions within the continental United States, 

Alaska, and territorial waters. The committee is aware that the Department concurred with related recommendations of another recent Comptroller General report (GAO–10–364). This report recommended that the Secretary of Defense update civil support policy 

and guidance delineating the role, responsibilities, and relationships between DOD entities, and direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 

establish a timeline to develop and issue a partner guide that identifies roles and responsibilities of DOD entities and agreed-upon 

approaches for interagency coordination for homeland defense and 

civil support efforts. The committee notes that, according to its response to GAO–10–364, the Department expects to have implemented these two recommendations by September 2011. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide written notification of compliance to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 15 

days of the date on which the Secretary determines that the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
354 

partment has completed actions necessary to implement the two 

specified Comptroller General recommendations. In the event that 

the Secretary determines that these two recommendations will not 

be implemented by September 30, 2011, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to provide written notification to the aforementioned committees containing an updated timeline for completion of actions necessary to implement the two recommendations. 

Report on the Potential Use of Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization Initiatives To Support Humanitarian Mine 

Action 

Each year, landmines and explosive remnants of war cause thousands of causalities in more than 60 countries around the world. 

In recent years, our military has made great improvements by developing technologies and tactics to detect and neutralize explosive 

remnants of war and improvised explosive devices. The committee 

is aware that the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) has made significant advances in the detection 

and neutralization of explosive devices and that some JIEDDO-developed initiatives may have the potential to be used by U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action programs. The committee therefore directs 

the Comptroller General to provide a report on the following areas: 

(1) A survey of JIEDDO-developed initiatives that may have 

humanitarian demining applications; 

(2) Recommendations to improve interagency coordination 

between the Departments of Defense and State with respect to 

the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, and relevant humanitarian demining funding activities of the Department of Defense and the Department of State; and 

(3) Recommendations to improve demining and disarming efforts through the use of new or existing JIEDDO-initiated technology, training, and equipment, including new joint testing 

strategies between the Departments of Defense and State in 

foreign countries including Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other 

identified countries with respect to emerging demining and disarming technologies. 

The report shall be distributed to the congressional defense committees and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by March 1, 2011. Relevant 

classified information should be submitted in a classified annex. 

Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base 

The committee remains concerned about the health and longterm viability of the solid rocket motor industrial base. Elsewhere 

in this Act, the committee recommends additional procurement 

funding to maintain a warm production line for Minuteman III 

solid rocket motors. However, such action does not fully address 

the challenges associated with sustaining currently-deployed strategic and missile defense systems or maintaining an intellectual 

and engineering capacity to support the next-generation rocket motors. These challenges are made worse by the proposed termination 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) 

Constellation program. Defense officials have estimated that the 

cost of propulsion systems could increase from 40 to 100 percent 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
355 

because infrastructure costs currently shared by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and NASA would be passed on to the Department 

of Defense. 

After extensive briefings with the Department and industry, the 

committee believes there is an opportunity to identify a more strategic, long-term, defense-wide approach to the development, acquisition, and production of solid rocket motors that would benefit the 

industrial base and could be leveraged for future strategic strike 

(both nuclear and non-nuclear), missile defense, and space launch 

systems. 

First, the committee believes the Department should invest in a 

substantive defense-wide research and development (R&D) activity 

specifically focused on design, development, and technology maturation associated with a 40-inch diameter class rocket motor. The 

committee understands that the industrial base capabilities necessary to support a 40-inch diameter class rocket motor can be applied to larger size motors that may be required for a next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile or submarine-launched ballistic missile and is also useful for missile defense and prompt global strike applications. However, the committee notes that strategic 

propulsion development activities have declined in recent years. 

The Navy terminated its R&D program in 2008; numerous technology demonstrations funded by the Air Force ended in 2009. The 

committee further recommends the Department foster competition 

and maintain at least two viable developers through this R&D effort. 

Second, the committee believes the Department should align its 

long-term solid rocket motor production plans to maximize the use 

of existing production capabilities. For example, the Navy will require solid rocket motor production through 2023 to support its Trident D5 life extension program. At this point, production could 

transition to the Air Force to support life extension of the Minuteman III beyond 2030 or a follow-on system. Thereafter, production 

could transition back to the Navy in the mid-2030 timeframe to 

support a Trident D5 follow-on system. Solid rocket motor production for missile defense systems should also be taken into account. 

Finally, the committee believes that the health and long-term viability of the solid rocket motor industrial base is a governmentwide challenge. Any DOD strategic plan should include NASA, and 

any NASA plan should include the Department of Defense. The 

committee encourages the Department to give full consideration to 

the committee’s preferences in the preparation of the solid rocket 

motor industrial base sustainment plan required by section 1078 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

OTHER MATTERS

Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program 

The committee notes that several major acquisition programs 

under the purview of the Department of Defense (DOD) have been 

plagued by cost growth, schedule delays, and under-performance. 

The Department often emphasizes transformation and reform in its 

acquisition policies and procedures, however, the trend to poor program performance continues. The committee recognizes that transVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00383 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
356 

formation combined with a smart acquisition process should result 

in affordable and interoperable weapon systems and platforms. 

Open architecture systems are an example of a transformational 

technology that has resulted in cost savings or avoidance to the Department. 

A great source for transformational technologies and ideas is the 

small business community which harbors many of the nation’s innovative thinkers and creative minds. Not only are small businesses vital to our economy, the committee considers them a vital 

source for developing innovative and cost-saving technologies in 

areas of military need. The Department has had success leveraging 

this source, primarily through the Small Business and Innovative 

Research (SBIR) Phase I and Phase II awards. The committee remains concerned though over the dismal record of success inserting 

such technologies into major defense acquisition programs and into 

the commercial market, despite the many transition organizations, 

processes, and initiatives designed to do just that. The Defense 

Science Board stated, in their July 2009 report titled ‘‘Fulfillment 

of Urgent Operational Needs,’’ that ‘‘the Department of Defense 

lacks the ability to rapidly field new capabilities to the warfighter 

in a systematic and effective way.’’ 

The committee notes that SBIR Phase III awards, funded by nonSBIR sources, are intended to help move SBIR-funded projects to 

the marketplace or into a program of record. The committee remains troubled that the Department has not effectively capitalized 

on the successes of SBIR Phase I and II innovations. Findings from 

the National Research Council and the Department of Defense indicate that a lack of stable funding and lack of a transition path 

are significant inhibitors. To address these inhibitors, the committee notes the precedent set by Navy Program Executive Office 

Submarine (PEO SUBS), during fiscal years 2008 through 2010, 

who undertook an effort to solve this problem using funding for the 

insertion of technologies developed by small businesses. Funding 

was made available to small business projects identified in program acquisition plans for high-risk/high-reward component technology development for inclusion in the procurement process. The 

committee notes that there are other examples of funding that has 

allowed for expedited small business awards that met program of 

record interoperability and affordability goals. The committee notes 

the National Research Council’s 2009 report, titled ‘‘An Assessment 

of the SBIR Program at the Department of Defense,’’ states that 

SBIR ‘‘Phase III transitions at PEO SUBS account for approximately 86 percent of all Navy Phase III contracts, and Navy in 

turn accounts for 70 percent of all DOD Phase III contracts.’’ The 

committee applauds the efforts of the Navy and encourages the acquisition community within the Department of Defense to expand 

its work on improving the transition of small business research and 

development ideas. 

The committee has included a provision, section 1054, in this 

title that would establish the Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program. The committee has also included $500.0 million in 

title XV of this Act to fund the program. In executing this program, 

the committee urges the Secretary of Defense, working through the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L), to: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
357 

(1) Develop and implement a competitive program designed 

to stimulate innovative technologies; reduce lifecycle costs; address technical risks; improve the timeliness and thoroughness 

of test and evaluation outcomes; and rapidly insert such products into military systems that meet critical national security 

needs, such as, but not limited to: force protection, sensors, 

complex data handling, advanced communications, advanced 

materials, nano-manufacturing, chemical/biological standoff detection, language translation, and cyber security; 

(2) Develop and implement clear goals and metrics for the 

program that would enhance the insertion or commercialization success of those technologies identified in paragraph (1); 

(3) Evaluate and prioritize projects based on the following: 

(a) Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

projects; 

(b) Non-SBIR projects that support ACAT I–IA, II, III 

and IV programs; 

(c) Projects executed by the defense laboratories and the 

test and evaluation community; 

(d) Projects cost-shared with state, local, or other government funds; and 

(e) Issue annual solicitations from the military departments, the defense agencies, and the U.S. Special Operations Command applications for funding; 

(4) Fund projects proposed by the PEOs or Program Managers that are determined most likely to be fielded or commercialized within three years; 

(5) Ensure technology transition decisions are localized as 

much as possible between the program manager, the acquisition manager, and the user; 

(6) The amount for each project under this program would nominally not exceed $3,000,000, but projects with a cost 

greater than that would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

approved by the USD AT&L; and 

(7) Selected projects would be funded for no more than two 

years, except on a case-by-case basis approved by the USD 

AT&L. 

The committee further notes that section 1054 would explicitly 

provide that nothing in section 1054 shall be interpreted to require 

any official of the Department of Defense to provide funding to any 

earmark as defined pursuant to House Rule XXI, clause 9 or any 

congressionally directed spending item as defined pursuant to Senate Rule XLIV, paragraph 5. The committee notes that no bill or 

report language located anywhere else in this report or in this Act 

should be interpreted to require the use of funding from the Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program for any earmark as 

so defined. 

Feasibility Study for Transfer of Aircraft to Non-Federal Entities 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, with participation of the Defense Logistics Agency, the military departments and 

other relevant federal agencies (to include the General Services Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Homeland Security), to study the feasibility and advisability of developing criteria for transferring aircraft from a miliVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:00 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
358 

ability of developing criteria for transferring aircraft from a military department to non-federal entities for the purposes of restoring and flying the aircraft. The study should, at a minimum, consider the following criteria for allowing such transfers: 

(1) Public safety as well as the safety record of the non-federal entities to which aircraft are proposed to be transferred; 

(2) Prevention of the release of sensitive or proprietary information or technology and other security concerns; 

(3) Cost, including any potential costs, both one-time and recurring, to the military departments; 

(4) Requirements for demilitarization of aircraft pursuant to 

section 2572 of title 10, United States Code; 

(5) Statutory considerations and identification of existing 

federal statutes prohibiting or otherwise impeding a proposed 

transfer; 

(6) Liability concerns, and other legal matters including restrictions against the sale or transfer of the aircraft by recipient entities to any other entity; 

(7) Status and availability of aircraft for transfer and of 

spare parts necessary to keep the transferred aircraft airworthy and whether such parts are needed to sustain any existing departmental assets; 

(8) The Department of Defense’s goals for the long-term preservation of available aircraft, including protection against vandalism, accidents, or complete destruction of the aircraft 

through a crash or other means; 

(9) Public access to aircraft proposed to be transferred, including such access in museums, public displays or air shows; 

(10) Criteria by which the military departments should 

evaluate a request for transfer of aircraft; 

(11) The ability of the non-federal entity to which an aircraft 

is proposed to be transferred to comply with any standards set 

by the Secretary of Defense; 

(12) Reversionary rights to the aircraft for the military department of origin should the recipient entity file for bankruptcy, cease operations or fail to comply with standards set by 

the Secretary of Defense; and 

(13) Any other information the Secretary of Defense deems 

relevant to determining the feasibility and advisability of conducting such transfers. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the 

findings of the study along with any recommendations the Secretary of Defense may have relating to establishing criteria for 

transferring aircraft to non-federal entities for the purposes of restoring and flying the aircraft to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by April 15, 

2011. 

Impact Assessment of Cybersecurity Standards 

The committee is aware that there have been discussions within 

the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding instituting voluntary 

standards and guidelines that follow best practices within the Department of Defense in future DOD contracts where a contractor 

is responsible for maintaining minimum standards for safeguarding, proper handling, and cyber intrusion reporting of unclasVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
359 

sified DOD information. The committee is interested in determining the cost and policy impacts of making these standards and 

guidelines that follow section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g–3) mandatory in contract 

language. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to submit a report to the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 

by February 1, 2011, that assesses the cost impacts to potential 

contractors and the Department of Defense of including these mandatory minimum standards in future contracts. This report shall 

also include an examination of the policy impact on the Department of Defense of including these requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulation system, as well as an analysis of how automated reporting might facilitate improved cyber intrusion reporting 

of unclassified DOD information between industry and the Department of Defense. 

Knowledge Management for Information Operations Programs 

In the conference report (H. Rept. 111–288) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee expressed concern with the Department of Defense’s information operations (IO) and strategic communications programs, 

particularly with the budget transparency and financial accountability for these types of programs, as well as the enterprise-wide 

oversight and coordination mechanisms necessary to prevent waste, 

fraud and abuse. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense has 

made significant strides in its justification of the IO budget request, but the process to collect and analyze reporting data is time 

intensive. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

make the necessary investments to develop a knowledge management system to collect and disseminate information related to strategic communication, information operations, and related activities 

from all of the services, agencies, and combatant commands in a 

more effective manner. To the extent that it is possible, this system 

should be portal-based and leverage business analytic tools. 

Military Liaison Elements 

The committee is aware of an ongoing review of the Military Liaison Elements (MLE) program being conducted by the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The committee understands that this review is being conducted in conjunction with the geographic combatant commanders, on a country-bycountry basis, and with the relevant country teams. The committee 

understands that the review is intended to outline program requirements as defined by the geographic combatant commanders 

and sourced by USSOCOM. 

The committee expects that this review will further define military liaison requirements, authorities, and responsibilities as they 

relate to defense activities within the MLE program purview. The 

committee looks forward to the results of the review and working 

with the Department, USSOCOM, and other germane congresVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00387 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
360 

sional committees, as required, to ensure proper resourcing and 

program implementation. 

Rebalancing of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Force 

The committee recognizes the dedication and courageous professionalism of the Joint Service Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

force, and acknowledges the bravery associated with defeating improvised explosive devices (IED), countering weapons of mass destruction, and eliminating explosive hazards from the battlefield. 

The committee further recognizes that EOD forces are indispensable combat enablers and contribute significantly to security, stability, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism objectives. 

The committee also recognizes that the services have made extraordinary efforts to revitalize the EOD force in support of unprecedented operational requirements in the Republic of Iraq and the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and that this highly specialized 

EOD force will remain an essential combat enabler for each service 

in the years to come. 

The committee, however, notes that recent growth in the EOD 

force has been funded primarily through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) requests and therefore may constitute a potentially 

unsustainable force structure. The committee is also aware that the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) 

through OCO requests has procured substantial amounts of materiel, including up-armored vehicles, robotics, and electronic warfare 

equipment for the EOD force. The committee is therefore concerned 

about the long-term sustainment and maintenance of these systems 

as responsibility is transferred to the base budget for the EOD 

force within each individual service. 

The committee notes that the Department’s response to the Senate Committee on Armed Services report (S. Rept. 110–77) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 stated that authorized EOD force levels were inadequate and 

would remain inadequate to meet future asymmetric threats, even 

if the operational tempo in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan decreased. The committee also notes that because of overwhelming requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan, EOD 

forces have been primarily focused on defeating improvised explosive devices and have had difficulty maintaining critical competencies in other advanced EOD skills, such as countering weapons of mass destruction, supporting domestic response forces, and 

underwater mine countermeasures. While improvements have been 

made, the committee remains concerned that the Services have not 

rebalanced the EOD force structure and maintained full-spectrum 

capabilities to ensure success in a wide range of contingencies as 

directed by the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

The committee encourages the Department to further define 

Joint Service EOD force structure requirements, correct identified 

inadequacies, rebalance force levels to meet future global requirements, and consider a consolidated budget justification display covering all programs and activities of the EOD force including procurement, operations and maintenance, and research, development, 

testing and evaluation. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
361 

Report on Acquisition Strategy for Organizational Clothing and 

Individual Equipment 

The committee is aware that organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) programs for the military services continue to be funded primarily through overseas contingency operation requests. The committee believes there should be better accountability and transparency in long-term planning, programming, and investment by the military services for the acquisition 

of OCIE. Further, a long-term investment strategy could better position the domestic OCIE industrial base to rapidly respond to new 

threats or requirements as well as accelerate industry investments 

that would further advancements in survivability and weight reduction for OCIE programs. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act that would include the following: 

(1) A plan to incorporate organizational clothing and individual equipment (personnel protection equipment and battle 

dress uniforms) into the President’s annual base budget request; 

(2) A survey and assessment of the capabilities, capacities, 

risks, and long-term sustainment requirements of the domestic 

industrial base of the United States, including critical subcontractor suppliers, in meeting the requirements of the military 

departments for organizational clothing and individual equipment requirements; 

(3) An assessment of organizational clothing and individual 

equipment programs and related research, development, and 

acquisition objectives, priorities, and funding profiles for these 

programs; 

(4) An assessment of existing initiatives used by the military 

departments to maintain the current level of readiness, 

jointness, and management of programs for the development, 

production, and fielding of organizational clothing and individual equipment to include the Cross-Service Warfighter 

Equipment Board, the Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance 

Board, and advance planning briefings for industry. 

Report on Department of Defense Support to State Defense Forces 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense submit a report 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Service not later than 120 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act that assesses Department of Defense support to State Defense Forces, as defined in section 109(c) of title 32, 

United States Code. This report shall include an assessment of current Department support to State Defense Forces, current limitations on provision of support, and Defense Support to Civil Authorities activities that support state-level defense forces, first responders and Department of Homeland Security agencies. 

Study on the Feasibility of the Democratic Republic of Georgia as 

a Transportation Base 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study of establishing in the democratic Republic of Georgia, at the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
362 

invitation of the government of Georgia, a transportation base for 

supplying U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. The committee 

further directs that, not later than December 31, 2010, the Secretary submit to the Committee on Armed Services in the House 

and the Committee on Armed Services in the Senate a report containing the results of that study. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—General Transfer Authority 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 2011 in 

division A of this Act. This section would limit the total amount 

transferred under this authority to $3.5 billion. This section would 

also require prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made. 

Section 1002—Authorization of Additional Appropriations for 

Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti for Fiscal Year 2010 

This section would increase the authorizations in title XV of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) to reflect fiscal year 2010 funding requests for operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Republic of Iraq, 

and the Republic of Haiti submitted by the Department of Defense 

after the passage of Public Law 111–84. This section would increase the authorizations by the total amount of the President’s request for each account in title XV. 

Section 1003—Budgetary Effects of this Act 

This section would specify that the budgetary effects of this Act 

for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–139) will be determined by reference to a statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the chairman of 

the House Committee on the Budget. 

SUBTITLE B—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1011—Unified Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism 

Campaign in Colombia 

This section would extend, by one year, the unified counter-drug 

and counterterrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia under 

section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as most recently amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Section 1012—Joint Task Forces Support to Law Enforcement 

Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism Activities 

This section would extend, by one year, the support by joint task 

forces under section 1022(b) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), as most recently 

amended by section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
363 

Section 1013—Reporting Requirement on Expenditures To Support 

Foreign Counter-Drug Activities 

This section would extend, by one year, the reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign counter-drug activities 

under section 1022(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), as most 

recently amended by section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Section 1014—Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain 

Foreign Governments 

This section would extend, by one year, the duration of authority 

for assistance under section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as most recently amended by section 1014(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

SUBTITLE C—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1021—Requirements for Long-Range Plan for Construction 

of Naval Vessels 

This section would amend section 231 of title 10, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a long-range 

plan for the construction of naval vessels with each submission of 

the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The long-range plan 

would be required to have 3 distinct sections each spanning a period of 10 years. The first section would be a detailed construction 

plan for the first 10 years, the second a probable construction plan 

for the second 10 years, and the third a notional construction plan 

for the last 10 years. This section would require that during the intervening years between submissions of the QDR, the plan may not 

be modified unless the change is accompanied by an addendum to 

the QDR which explains and justifies the decrease with respect to 

the national security of the United States. This section would further require that the plan fully comply with section 5062(b) of title 

10, United States Code, to maintain a minimum of 11 operational 

aircraft carriers and to phase the construction of such carriers as 

to minimize the total cost of procurement. 

Section 1022—Requirements for the Decommissioning of Naval 

Vessels 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to notify 

the congressional defense committees of the Navy’s intention to decommission any battle force vessel of the active fleet of the Navy 

in accordance with established procedures similar to those used for 

prior approval reprogramming requests. This section would require 

the notification from the Secretary to contain reasons for the retirement of the vessel, the operational impact on other ships of the 

same class, a certification from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff that the retirement would not adversely affect the requirements of the various combatant commanders to fulfill missions critical to national security, and a detailed budgetary analysis of retaining the vessel in commission. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
364 

Section 1023—Requirements for the Size of the Navy Battle Force 

Fleet 

This section would limit the number of battle force vessels the 

Secretary of the Navy may decommission, in fiscal year 2011 and 

subsequent fiscal years, to no more than two thirds the number of 

vessels scheduled for commissioning into the battle force fleet for 

the particular year. This limitation would apply until the total 

number of vessels in the battle force fleet reaches 313. Submarines 

would be excluded from any restriction concerning decommissioning. 

Section 1024—Retention and Status of Certain Naval Vessels 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to retain 

the vessels USS Nassau (LHA 4) and USS Peleliu (LHA 5) in a 

commissioned and operational status until delivery to the Navy of 

the vessels USS America (LHA 6) and the vessel designated LHA 

7, respectively. 

SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM

Section 1031—Extension of Certain Authority for Making Rewards for Combating Terrorism 

This section would extend the authority for the Secretary of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person providing information 

or nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government personnel or government personnel of allied forces participating in a combined operation with U.S. armed forces through fiscal year 2011. 

The authority to offer and make rewards by acting through government personnel of allied forces is currently in use in the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan. 

Section 1032—Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or 

Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using 

funds available to the Department of Defense from October 1, 2010, 

until December 31, 2011, to release any detainee at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States, its 

territories, or possessions. The section would also prohibit the use 

of funds available to the Department from October 1, 2010, until 

December 31, 2011, for the transfer of any such detainee into the 

United States, its territories, or possessions until 120 days after 

the President submits to the congressional defense committees a 

comprehensive plan for the disposition of any such detainee that 

includes at a minimum: 

(1) A proposal for the disposition of the individual; 

(2) An assessment of the risks posed to U.S. national security by the individual; 

(3) The proposed measures that would be taken for mitigating those risks; 

(4) The proposed location or locations at which the individual 

would be held; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
365 

(5) The costs associated with executing the plan, including 

any necessary technical or financial assistance that would be 

provided to state and local law enforcement agencies; 

(6) A summary of the results of required consultation with 

the chief executive of the state, District of Columbia, territory, 

or possession to which the individual would be transferred; and 

(7) A certification by the Attorney General that under the 

plan the individual poses little or no security risk to the United 

States, its territories, or possessions. 

Section 1033—Certification Requirements Relating to the Transfer 

of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using 

any of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for the transfer of any 

detainee at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

to the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any other 

foreign entity. This prohibition would apply unless the Secretary of 

Defense certifies to Congress, with the concurrence of the Secretary 

of State and at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual, that the government of the country or the recognized leadership of the entity to which the individual would be transferred: 

(1) Is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization; 

(2) Maintains effective control of any detention facility within which the individual may be held; 

(3) Is not threatened in a manner that could substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual; 

(4) Has agreed to take effective steps to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its 

citizens, or its allies in the future; 

(5) Has taken such steps that the Secretary of Defense determines necessary for ensuring that the individual cannot engage or re-engage in any terrorist activity; and 

(6) Has agreed to share any information with the United 

States that is related to the individual or his or her associates 

that could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, 

or its allies. 

This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 

using any funds for the transfer of any such detainee to the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any other foreign 

entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual transferred 

from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the 

same country or entity who engaged in terrorist activity subsequent to their transfer. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to waive this additional prohibition if the Secretary of Defense 

certifies that such a transfer would be in the national interest of 

the United States. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
366 

Section 1034—Prohibition on the Use of Funds To Modify or Construct Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred From United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using 

any of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to modify or construct any facility in the United States, its territories, or 

possessions to house any detainee transferred from United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control 

of the Department of Defense. This prohibition would not apply to 

the modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This section would also require the Secretary 

to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

merits, costs, and risks of using any facility in the United States, 

its territories, or possessions to house any such detainee for the 

purposes of detention or imprisonment. The report would include 

each of the following elements: 

(1) A discussion of the merits associated with any proposed 

facility that would justify using that facility instead of the facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

as well as that facility’s contribution to effecting a comprehensive policy for continuing military detention operations; 

(2) The rationale for selecting the specific site for any proposed facility, including the details of the selection processes 

and criteria used; 

(3) A discussion of the potential risks to any community in 

the vicinity of the proposed facility, the measures that could be 

taken to mitigate those risks, and the likely costs of implementing those measures; 

(4) A discussion of any necessary modifications to any proposed facility for ensuring that transferred detainees may not 

establish contact with any individual, including contact with 

any other person detained at the facility, that is not approved 

by the Department of Defense, together with the likely cost of 

making those modifications; 

(5) A discussion of any support to the proposed facility site 

that would likely be provided by the Department of Defense, 

which identifies the types of support, the number of required 

support personnel for each type, and the estimated cost of support; 

(6) A discussion of any off-site support that would likely be 

provided by the Department of Defense for operating the proposed facility, which identifies the types of possible support, 

the number of required support personnel for each type, and 

the estimated cost of support; and 

(7) A discussion of the legal issues that could be raised as 

a result of detaining or imprisoning any individual at the proposed facility that could not be raised as a result of detaining 

individuals at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
367 

Section 1035—Comprehensive Review of Force Protection Policies 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

comprehensive review of Department of Defense policies, regulations, instructions, and directives pertaining to force protection 

within the Department, including requirements levied from outside 

entities, such as the E-verify rule and Homeland Security Presidential Directive–12. This section would require that the Secretary 

of Defense shall submit a report on this review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by June 1, 2011. 

Section 1036—Fort Hood Follow-On Review Implementation Fund 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to deposit up 

to $100.0 million of fiscal year 2011 operation and maintenance 

funds into a fund to begin to address the recommendations of the 

Fort Hood Follow-on Review. Funds in the Fort Hood Follow-on Review Implementation Fund could be transferred in: military personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; defense health program; or defense 

working capital funds to address the recommendations of the review. This section would provide the authority for the Secretary of 

Defense to transfer unused funds transferred from the Fort Hood 

Follow-on Review Implementation Fund back to the fund. This section also would require that the Secretary of Defense notify the 

congressional defense committees in advance and in writing of any 

proposed obligations under the fund. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a quarterly report of commitments, obligations, and expenditures of the fund. 

Section 1037—Inspector General Investigation of the Conduct and 

Practices of Lawyers Representing Individuals Detained at Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to investigate certain lawyers who represent individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, regarding certain conduct and practices. This section would 

require the Inspector General to initiate the investigation 30 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General: (1) determine that the Inspector 

General’s investigation cannot be performed without interfering 

with, or otherwise compromising, any related criminal investigation, prosecution, or other legal proceeding; and (2) submit such determination to Congress. This section would also require the Inspector General to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a report describing the results of the investigation within 90 days of its completion. 

SUBTITLE E—STUDIES AND REPORTS

Section 1041—Department of Defense Aerospace-Related Mishap 

Safety Investigation Reports 

This section would require the secretary of a military department 

to provide, upon written request to the secretary concerned from 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
368 

any of the congressional defense committees, a briefing on the privileged report’s findings, causal factors and recommendations contained in a Department of Defense aerospace-related accident investigation report. 

Section 1042—Interagency National Security Knowledge and Skills 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to commission an appropriate, independent non-profit organization to study 

and assess the current state of interagency national security 

knowledge and skills possessed by Department of Defense civilians 

and uniformed personnel. This section would also require the organization to make recommendations for strengthening such knowledge and skills and require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report containing the findings and recommendations of the study to 

the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2011. 

The committee believes that the ability of national security professionals to work effectively across department and agency boundaries is critical to national security. The committee encourages the 

Department and all agencies with national security responsibilities 

to pursue efforts to strengthen the interagency national security 

knowledge and skills of their personnel. The committee expects this 

report to provide the Department and Congress a thorough baseline assessment and concrete, actionable recommendations that can 

be pursued in the near-term future. 

Section 1043—Report on Establishing a Northeast Joint Training 

Regional Center 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to analyze 

and report back to the congressional defense committees on the 

need for a joint regional training center capability in the northeastern United States. 

Section 1044—Comptroller General Report on Previously 

Requested Reports 

This section would require the Comptroller General to submit a 

report to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, not 

later than March 1, 2011, that would evaluate the sufficiency, adequacy, and conclusions of the following three reports: the report on 

Air Force fighter force shortfalls required by the report of the 

House of Representatives which accompanied the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84), the report on procurement of 4.5 generation fighters as required by section 131 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2218), and the report on combat air forces 

restructuring as required by the report of the House of Representatives numbered 111–288) which accompanied the conference report 

for the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). The 

Comptroller General’s report would examine the potential costs and 

benefits of the service life extension program costs to sustain the 

legacy fleet to meet inventory requirements, the falcon structural 

augmentation roadmap of F–16s, and any additional programs designed to extend the service life of legacy fighter aircraft. Additionally, this section would prohibit retirement of fighter aircraft from 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
369 

the Air Force or the Air National Guard inventory in 2011 until 

180 days after receipt of the Comptroller General’s report. 

Section 1045—Report on Nuclear Triad 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the modernization 

and sustainment of the nuclear triad over the next 20 years no 

later than March 1, 2011. 

Section 1046—Cybersecurity Study and Report 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study of the use of modeling and simulation tools to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and to develop strategies to deter malicious 

activity intended to compromise Department of Defense information systems. This section would require that the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on this study to the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 

by January 1, 2012. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1051—National Defense Panel 

This section would amend section 118 of title 10, United States 

Code by replacing the Independent Review Panel appointed by the 

Secretary of Defense with a National Defense Panel. The chairmen 

and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House Committee on Armed Services will each appoint two 

members, and the Secretary of Defense shall appoint two panel cochairs. This section would require the panel to submit to the Secretary of Defense a report that sets the parameters and provides 

guidance to the Secretary on the conduct of the review. This section 

would also require the panel to review the Secretary of Defense’s 

Terms of Reference, and any other materials providing the basis 

for, or substantial inputs to, the work of the Department of Defense 

on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and conduct an assessment of the assumptions, strategy, findings, and risks of the report 

of the QDR. It would also require the Panel to issue a report to 

Congress on the assessment of its reviews not later than three 

months after the publication of a report of a QDR. 

Section 1052—Quadrennial Defense Review 

This section would amend paragraph (4) of section 118b of title 

10, United States Code to require that the recommendations of the 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) not be influenced, constrained 

or informed by the budget submitted to Congress by the President. 

It would also include a sense of Congress that the QDR is a strategic document that should be based upon a process unconstrained 

by budgetary influences. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
370 

Section 1053—Sale of Surplus Military Equipment to State and 

Local Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agencies 

This section would amend section 2576 of title 10, United States 

Code, by expanding the state and local agencies to which the Secretary of Defense may sell surplus military equipment to include 

homeland security and emergency management agencies. This section would also expand the types of equipment that may be sold to 

include personal protective equipment and other appropriate equipment. 

Section 1054—Department of Defense Rapid Innovation Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a program for the purpose of accelerating and supporting defense 

technology transition to the warfighter or commercial markets and 

would require the Secretary, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to establish guidelines for the operation of the 

program. Under this section, the Secretary would be required, annually, to solicit from the military departments, the defense agencies, and the Special Operations Command applications for funding, under the program, to accelerate certain technology projects 

from the prototype stage to the field or marketplace. The guidance 

issued by the Secretary would include priorities for certain types 

of defense research and criteria for evaluating applications. Nothing in this section would require any official of the Department of 

Defense to provide funding under this section to any earmark as 

defined pursuant to House Rule XXI, clause 9 or any congressionally directed spending item as defined pursuant to Senate Rule 

XLIV, paragraph 5. Funding authorized for the program would be 

from amounts authorized to be appropriated within research, development, test, and evaluation defense-wide accounts and would not 

exceed $500.0 million for any fiscal year under the program. 

This section would allow the Secretary to transfer funds available for the program to the research, development, test and evaluation accounts of a military department, defense agency, or the unified combatant command for special operations forces. The Secretary may delegate the management and operation of the program. This section would require the Secretary to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report, not later than 60 days 

after the last day of a fiscal year during which the Secretary carries out the program, describing the operation of the program during such fiscal year. 

The authority to carry out a program under this section would 

terminate on September 30, 2015. 

Section 1055—Technical and Clerical Amendments 

This section would make a number of technical and clerical 

amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law. 

Section 1056—Limitation on Air Force Fiscal Year 2011 Force 

Structure Announcement Implementation 

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal 

year 2011 funds for the purpose of implementing the Air Force fiscal year 2011 Force Structure Announcement until 45 days after 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
371 

the Secretary of the Air Force provides the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a detailed report on the follow-on missions for bases affected by the 

2010 Combat Air Forces restructure and certifies that the Air Sovereignty Alert mission will be fully resourced with required funding, personnel, and aircraft. 

Section 1057—Budgeting for the Sustainment and Modernization of 

Nuclear Delivery Systems 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that a separate budget is included with respect to programs and 

platforms regarding the sustainment and modernization of nuclear 

delivery systems of the United States in the yearly budget submission, consistent with the plan contained in the report submitted to 

Congress under Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Section 1058—Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions 

This section contains various findings concerning reductions in 

the nuclear forces of the United States. 

It also contains a sense of Congress provision stating that any reduction in the nuclear forces of the United States should be supported by a thorough assessment of the strategic environment, 

threat, and policy, and the technical and operational implications 

of such reductions, and that specific criteria are necessary to guide 

future decisions regarding further reductions in such nuclear 

forces. 

This section would also limit implementation of a reduction in 

United States nuclear forces below the levels contained in the New 

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by the United States and 

the Russian Federation on April 8, 2010, until 180 days after the 

Secretary of Defense and the Administrator for Nuclear Security 

jointly submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

that includes: 

(1) The justification for such reduction; 

(2) An assessment of the strategic environment, threat, and 

policy and the technical and operational implications of such 

reduction; 

(3) A written certification by the Secretary of Defense that: 

(1) either the strategic environment or the assessment of the 

threat has changed to allow for such reduction or technical 

measures to provide a commensurate or better level of safety, 

security, and reliability as before such reductions are implemented for the remaining nuclear forces; (2) such reduction 

preserves the nuclear deterrent capabilities of the ‘‘nuclear 

triad’’; (3) such reduction does not require a change in targeting strategy from counterforce targeting to counter-value 

targeting; (4) the remaining nuclear forces provide a sufficient 

means of protection against unforeseen technical challenges 

and geopolitical events; and (5) such reduction is compensated 

by other measures that provide a commensurate or better deterrence capability and level of credibility; and 

(4) A written certification by the Administrator for Nuclear 

Security that: (1) technical measures provide a commensurate 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
372 

or better level of safety, security, and reliability as before such 

reductions are implemented; (2) the remaining nuclear forces 

provide a sufficient means of protection against unforeseen 

technical challenges and geopolitical events; (3) measures to 

modernize the nuclear weapons complex have been implemented to provide a sufficiently responsive infrastructure to 

support the remaining nuclear forces. 

The nuclear forces covered by this section would include both active and inactive nuclear warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile, and deployed and non-deployed delivery vehicles. 

Section 1059—Sense of the Congress on the Nuclear Posture 

Review 

This section would make it the sense of Congress that the Nuclear Posture Review, released in April 2010 by the Secretary of 

Defense, weakens the national security of the United States by 

eliminating options to defend against a catastrophic nuclear, biological, chemical, or conventional attack against the United States. 

Section 1060—Strategic Assessment of Strategic Challenges Posed 

by Potential Competitors 

The committee notes that it received testimony from the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Independent Panel that, although 

useful, the QDR needs to be a long-term, twenty year study that 

addresses the issues that are of concern to Congress. The committee also received testimony that the 2010 QDR was a budget 

constrained exercise, which was fiscally responsible but may have 

limited more ambitious questioning of assumptions and creative 

thinking because basic budget and end-strength assumptions were 

not challenged. 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the regional combatant commands, to submit a strategic assessment to 

the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2011, on the 

current and future strategic challenges posed to the United States 

by potential competitors out to 2021. 

Section 1061—Electronic Access to Certain Classified Information 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide to 

each committee of Congress an electronic communications link capable of supporting appropriate classified communications between 

the Department of Defense and each committee of Congress. Specifically, the committee expects that the Department will arrange 

for the committee to be connected to the SIPRNet through 

CAPNET. 

Section 1062—Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism 

This section would express the Sense of Congress that the claims 

of American victims of torture and hostage taking by the Government of Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein should be resolved by a prompt and fair settlement negotiated between the 

Government of Iraq and the Government of the United States. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
373 

Section 1063—Policy Regarding Appropriate Use of Department of 

Defense Resources 

This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by adding 

a new section 113b to ensure that all resources of the Department 

of Defense are used only for activities that: 

(1) Fulfill a legitimate government purpose; 

(2) Comply with all applicable laws, regulations and policies 

of the Department; and 

(3) Contribute to the mission of the Department. 

This section would also separately establish a prohibition on the 

use of any Department of Defense funds for activity that does not 

comply with the policy established in section 113b, as added by this 

section, and would prohibit the payment of salary to any employee 

who engages in an intentional violation of such policy. 

Section 1064—Executive Agent for Preventing Counterfeit 

Microelectronics Into the Defense Supply Chain 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense designate a 

senior official of the Department of Defense to serve as an executive agent for preventing the introduction of counterfeit microelectronics into the defense supply chain. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense 

committees with a description of the roles, responsibilities and authorities for the executive agent, as well as a strategy and implementation plan to identify, mitigate, prevent and eliminate counterfeit microelectronics within the defense supply chain. 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Civilian Personnel Authorizations 

The committee notes that chapter 129 of title 10, United States 

Code, requires each Department of Defense component to manage 

its civilian workforce based on workload and available funding, and 

not on end strength, full time equivalents, or any other numerical 

limits unless otherwise established by law. Each Department of Defense component currently is required to provide to the congressional defense committees an annual certification in February that 

its civilian workforce is managed in this manner. 

The committee is aware that it is the Department’s policy to lock 

the personnel authorization levels until the next budget cycle, notwithstanding changes in workload that may occur. This has led the 

Department to meet the workload changes either with ‘‘overhires’’ 

or through hiring contractors. However, the committee is concerned 

that this emphasis on authorizations is being enforced at the expense of workload-based analysis and presents challenges for the 

Department to efficiently manage and grow its workforce at a time 

when it is attempting to reduce its reliance on contractors and to 

right size its workforce. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, as supported 

by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to re-examine 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
374 

this policy and to submit any recommended statutory revisions at 

the time of the President’s budget submission for fiscal year 2012. 

Conversion of Department of Defense Civilian Positions to General 

Schedule 

Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) repealed the Department of Defense (DOD) National Security Personnel System (NSPS). All DOD 

civilian employees covered by NSPS are to be converted back to the 

General Schedule (GS) system by January 1, 2012. The committee 

is aware that the Department has stood up a transition office and 

is aggressively moving forward with the conversion. While the committee applauds this action, it is concerned that many potential 

issues arising from a rapid conversion may not be addressed, such 

as personnel being placed in a retained pay status. The committee 

recognizes that this may be inevitable. However, the committee expects the Department’s transition office to move expeditiously in reviewing all classifications and adjust the descriptions where appropriate to address those circumstances. The committee directs the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to brief 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on 

Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 

Government Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform by November 15, 2010, on the Department’s 

plans for a nation-wide adjustment to be paid out in January 2011, 

along with any other salary increases, including for individuals in 

a pay retention status. 

The committee further notes that the Department was provided 

with performance management and hiring flexibilities which would 

apply across the DOD civilian workforce within the context of the 

GS system and consistent with collective bargaining principles. The 

committee believes that many of the problems encountered under 

the GS system that were related to position classifications, hiring 

or performance appraisals, and rewarding performance are regulatory barriers that have been imposed either by the Office of Personnel Management or internally by the Department. The committee commends the work to date of the transition office in beginning to tackle these issues. The committee expects the Department 

to exercise fully the authorities provided under section 1113 of Public Law 111–84 and to continue to work with its civilian workforce, 

the federal employee labor unions, and Congress to establish a fair 

and transparent personnel system within the GS system. By utilizing these authorities, the committee believes that the Department’s initiatives could serve as a model for personnel reform, 

under GS, for the entire federal workforce. 

Deployed Civilians 

The committee continues to address issues related to the benefits 

provided to federal civilian employees who are assigned, on a voluntary basis, to work in a combat zone. In this title, provisions are 

included to address post-combat care coordinators to assist civilians 

who have been injured while serving in a combat zone as well as 

the extension of premium pay. However, the committee had been 

anticipating that the Office of Personnel Management, in coordinaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00402 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
375 

tion with the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Labor, would be proposing a broader package of pay, 

leave, workman’s compensation and health benefits and incentives 

for all federal agencies that send personnel to hazardous duty 

areas; this is particularly important for those federal agencies that 

have not have had as much experience, as have the Department of 

Defense or Department of State, in sending their personnel into 

combat zones. The committee is disappointed that no such proposal 

has yet been received, despite the fact that federal civilians increasingly are playing a key support role in the current operations 

in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

and will continue to do so in future operations. 

Retirement Eligibility for Department of Defense Fire Fighters 

The committee is aware that changes made by the Office of Personnel Management to the classification series for federal fire fighters potentially has impacted the ability of some individuals to retire pursuant to section 8412 of title 5, United States Code. The impact has been exacerbated because many Department of Defense 

components updated personnel records for these individuals to reflect the changes without taking into consideration the special retirement provisions of section 8412. The committee understands 

that now each retirement package for the affected personnel must 

be reviewed and approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness. This process can cause unnecessary 

delays in the retirement plans for the affected individuals. 

The committee, therefore, directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness to review and adjudicate these cases 

in a more expeditious manner that fully takes into consideration 

the desire of the affected individuals to move on to the next phase 

of their lives. The committee further directs the Under Secretary 

to provide written notice of compliance to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and 

the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by November 1, 2010. The notification of compliance also should include 

the numbers of affected personnel, including the status of each individual’s re-adjudicated annuity, and whether any future statutory 

changes are necessary to prevent a recurrence of the problem. If 

the Under Secretary determines a statutory change is required, the 

committee directs the Under Secretary to submit a proposal with 

the notification of compliance letter to the aforementioned committees. 

Scholarship Program for Civilians in the Mental Health Profession 

Section 1117 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requires the Secretary of Defense 

to provide a report to Congress on the feasibility of establishing a 

scholarship program for civilians in the mental health profession. 

The Department of Defense issued the ‘‘Report on Civilian Health 

Professions Scholarship Program for Mental Health Providers,’’ in 

June 2009. The report notes that the supply of available personnel 

may not meet the increasing demand for civilian mental health 

care practitioners, and recommends that a pilot scholarship proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00403 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
376 

gram be established to determine whether the cost of such an effort 

is worth the number of practitioners it might generate. The committee agrees with the report’s assessment that with the increasing 

numbers of cases of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic 

stress disorder, there is a need to recruit and develop individuals 

with the skills to handle such injuries. However, the committee is 

disappointed that the Department has not yet submitted a recommendation for a pilot scholarship program for civilians interested specifically in the mental health profession. The committee 

believes that such a program may have value and encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to consider developing a mental health scholarship pilot program for civilians. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1101—Authority for the Department of Defense To Approve 

an Alternate Method of Processing Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Within One or More Component Organizations 

Under Specified Circumstances 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish, within one or more of the component organizations of the Department of Defense, an alternate program for processing equal 

employment opportunity complaints. The alternate program would 

include procedures to reduce processing time and eliminate redundancy, reinforce local management and chain-of-command responsibility, and provide the parties involved with early opportunities for 

resolution of complaints. Participation in the program is voluntary 

on the part of the complainant. The Secretary shall consult with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in developing the 

alternate program. Such a program would expire five years after 

the date of enactment of this Act unless the Secretary submits a 

request to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services for an extension within 180 days of 

expiration of the program. 

This section is based on section 1111 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 

106–398) which authorized the Department to implement three 

pilot programs to streamline the processing of equal employment 

opportunity complaints. The programs were authorized for a threeyear period, which expired on October 1, 2007. The law required 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study and report to 

Congress on the results of the pilot program during, and at the 

conclusion of, the program. Recommendations made by GAO are incorporated into this section, including a requirement for an assessment of the program in meeting program objectives. In addition, 

this section would require GAO to provide two reports to Congress 

on the results of the alternate program, beginning two years after 

date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 1102—Clarification of Authorities at Personnel 

Demonstration Laboratories 

This section would make technical corrections to section 1105 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) related to the Department of Defense science and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
377 

technology reinvention-laboratories to conform with the legislative 

intent to provide direct-hire authority for such laboratories. This 

section also would amend the authority provided in section 1108 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to hire scientists and engineers, 

designated as shortage categories, by increasing the limitation on 

positions from 2 percent to 4 percent of the total number of positions within one laboratory. This section also would make technical 

and conforming amendments to section 1108 of Public Law 110– 

417. 

Section 1103—Special Rule Relating to Certain Overtime Pay 

This section would amend section 5542 of title 5, United States 

Code, to allow certain executive branch employees working aboard, 

or in support of, the forward-deployed carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) to earn overtime at the rate of one and one-half 

times their hourly rate while the carrier is forward-deployed in 

Japan. 

Currently, employees serving in a foreign area, such as Japan, 

are not covered by the mandatory requirement of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 213(f)) to pay not less than time-and-ahalf for overtime work. The current lower overtime rate for work 

performed overseas has the potential to negatively impact work 

being done on, or in support of, the current forward deployment of 

the USS George Washington to Yokosuka, Japan. The committee 

notes that the USS George Washington is the first forward-deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeported in a foreign 

country. These employees will play a critical, ongoing role in maintaining the readiness and mission capabilities of the nation’s forward-deployed ships. 

This section also would require the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the 

Office of Personnel Management on the use of this authority, including any associated costs, within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 1104—One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive Annual 

Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for 

Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas 

This section would extend, for one additional year, the authority 

of the head of a federal agency to waive the limitations on the 

amount of premium pay that may be paid to a civilian employee 

who performs certain work in an overseas location that falls under 

the responsibility of U.S. Central Command, an overseas location 

that falls under the responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military operation, or in responding to an emergency declared by the President. The payment may not exceed the annual 

rate of salary payable to the Vice President under section 104 of 

title 3, United States Code. 

Section 1105—Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations 

This section would amend section 9903 of title 5, United States 

Code, which provides for the authority to hire highly qualified experts (HQE) and prescribes appropriate pay rates. This section 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
378 

would clarify the intent of that statute to allow such individuals 

who are serving in a contingency operation area, as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code, to receive similar benefits 

and compensation as other federal civilian employees serving in 

those areas currently receive. This includes premium pay or danger 

pay allowances, compensatory time off, and other appropriate compensation or allowances authorized under chapter 59 of title 5, 

United States Code. 

The committee is aware that highly qualified experts currently 

serving in areas of contingency operations have been denied any 

type of hazardous duty compensation because the Department of 

Defense and the Office of Personnel Management have interpreted 

such compensation as an incentive, which is explicitly prohibited 

under section 9903 of title 5, United States Code. While the committee does not agree with the interpretation that such hazardous 

duty compensation is an incentive, this section would remove any 

possible ambiguity. Furthermore, the committee encourages the 

Department to take immediate action to remedy the compensation 

inequities experienced by HQE currently working in the Republic 

of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Section 1106—Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators 

This section would require that each federal agency that sends 

civilian employees on hazardous duty assignments in support of 

U.S. military operations in a contingency operation to assign postcombat case coordinators to employees who sustain a traumatic injury, or experience a serious disease or illness during performance 

of their duty in the contingency operation. The committee notes 

that federal civilian employees increasingly are providing important support in contingency operations and many are experiencing 

serious medical problems upon returning to their regular assignment. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense already 

assigns caseworkers to its civilian expeditionary workforce. The responsibility of these caseworkers is to guide and direct all deployed 

civilians to available resources, provide intervention in problem 

claims, and work with the service component’s Injury Compensation Program Administrators to help injured employees navigate 

the Office of Worker’s Compensation Program claims process. However, the committee is concerned that no similar support yet exists 

for civilians deployed from other federal agencies who need assistance coordinating benefits between the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits Program and the Federal Employees Compensation Act 

(Public Law 89–554). 

Section 1107—Authority To Waive Maximum Age Limit for Certain 

Appointments 

This section would amend section 3307 of title 5, United States 

Code, to allow the Department of Defense to waive the hiring and 

retirement age limits for federal law enforcement and fire fighter 

positions in certain circumstances. While the committee supports 

the Department’s plan to scale back significantly the use of contractors in support services, it is concerned that there may be unintended consequences when converting law enforcement and fire 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
379 

fighting functions to federal government positions. Even if the contractor employees currently performing these functions would like 

to transition into positions with the federal government, many may 

not be able to compete for such positions because of existing age 

limits. This section would help to rectify that situation by explicitly 

allowing the waiver of the hiring age limits for law enforcement 

and fire fighter personnel in these circumstances. The committee 

expects that any Department of Defense established physical or 

medical standards for these positions still would apply. 

Section 1108—Sense of Congress Regarding Waiver of Recovery of 

Certain Payments Made Under Civilian Employees Voluntary 

Separation Incentive Program 

This section would express the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should waive repayment of the voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP) for employees who accepted a reassignment with the Department of Defense during the period of April 1, 

2004 to May 1, 2008 and had received written assurance that repayment would not be required or would be waived. The committee 

notes that the individuals who were rehired were assured that they 

would not be required to repay their separation pay based on an 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) national emergency guidance issued following September 1, 2001. However, due to an oversight, the committee understands that it was subsequently determined the guidance did not apply to employees covered under section 9902, title 5, United States Code, which effectively superseded 

the OPM guidance. The committee understands that approximately 

40 individuals were affected by this determination and that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service now is seeking VSIP repayment from these individuals. While the Department no longer 

waives VSIP repayment for individuals who have been rehired 

since May 1, 2008, the committee believes those individuals who 

returned to the Department immediately following the declaration 

of a national emergency, and who received written assurances that 

repayment would not be required, deserve to retain, or be repaid, 

their voluntary separation incentive pay. The committee further 

notes that paragraphs (f)(6)(A) and (f)(6)(B) already authorize a 

waiver of VSIP repayment and urges the Secretary to utilize this 

authority for the individuals covered by this section. 

Section 1109—Suspension of DCIPS Pay Authority Extended for a 

Year 

Section 1114 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) suspended implementation of the 

Defense Civilian Personnel System until December 31, 2010. This 

section would extend the suspension for an additional year, 

through December 31, 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
380 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee focused on three broad areas in this title. First, 

the committee acted to ensure that both the necessary resources 

and the proper degree of oversight were brought to bear on the war 

against al Qa’ida and other militant extremists in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Second, 

the committee continued its oversight of the redeployment of 

United States military forces from, and the transition of the U.S. 

military role in, the Republic of Iraq. Third, the committee continued its past pattern of working to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to build the capacity of nations that have chosen to partner with the United States in combating militant extremism. 

On December 1, 2009, the President announced that he was deploying an additional 30,000 United States troops to Afghanistan 

on top of troop increases that were announced in March of 2009. 

When these troops are fully deployed, sometime in the fall of 2010, 

there will be about 98,000 U.S. troops in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan, more than a three-fold increase in the troop level of 

two years ago and almost four times the level from the end of 2007. 

The committee applauds this renewed focus on Afghanistan and 

has acted in this title and other titles to ensure that those troops 

have the resources they need. The committee has included a provision that would authorize funding for the Commanders’ Emergency 

Response Program (CERP) and additionally has included a provision that would authorize a program to fund reintegration efforts 

for low-level Taliban fighters who wish to end their involvement in 

the insurgency. Further, the committee has included a provision 

that would improve reporting on the war in Afghanistan to ensure 

that proper oversight of United States efforts there is maintained. 

The committee has also worked hard to ensure that the new 

focus on engagement with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is properly supported. Over the past year, the government and military of 

Pakistan have taken aggressive action to combat violent extremists 

in their country and additionally captured important leaders in the 

Afghan Taliban. Such actions are vital to the successful completion 

of the United States mission in Afghanistan and the ongoing fight 

to eliminate al Qa’ida. The committee has acted to enhance the cooperative relationship with Pakistan and ensure that bureaucratic 

issues do not interfere with the relationship. The committee has included a provision that would extend the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund by year and a provision that would further extend Coalition Support Funds authority to include operations involving al 

Qa’ida, the Taliban, and other military extremists in Pakistan. 

The committee has acted to continue oversight of the redeployment of United States troops out of the Republic of Iraq and the 

transition of their mission in that country. The United States’ long 

military involvement in that country is coming to a close, and the 

combat mission will be transitioning on September 1, 2010, to a 

mission to provide advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces 

until December 31, 2011, at which point all U.S. forces will be reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00408 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
381 

moved from Iraq. The committee has acted to ensure that the reduced, but still significant, number of troops in Iraq have the resources they need. The committee has included legislative provisions that would provide $100.0 million for CERP for Iraq and $2.0 

billion for the Iraq Security Forces Fund in title XV. The committee 

has also acted to enhance oversight of the remaining mission in 

Iraq, eliminating unnecessary reports and refocusing the requirements of those that remain. 

Finally, the committee has again acted aggressively to enhance 

the capacity of nations that choose to partner with the United 

States to combat al Qa’ida. Such partnership was a key tenet of the 

recently-released Quadrennial Defense Review, and the committee 

believes that building the capacity of partners is vital to bring 

about the eventual end of al Qa’ida and their extremist allies. Such 

programs have already shown some promise, particularly in the 

Republic of Yemen, which has taken effective action to attack the 

extremist group al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, the committee has included a provision in this title that would increase the 

authorization for the 1206 program to $500.0 million, an increase 

of $150.0 million, including an authorization of $75.0 million in 

that program specifically for a program to train and equip security 

forces in Yemen. As already noted, the committee has acted to enhance the counterterrorism capabilities of Pakistan. And the committee has included a provision that would increase the authorization for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations 

Coordination Center by $20.0 million. The committee believes that 

these actions will further enhance the United States’ capability to 

combat al Qa’ida, prosecute the war in Afghanistan, bring to a 

close the war in Iraq, and build the capacity of those nations that 

share the desire to end the threat of militant extremism. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Air Force Requirements for Light Air Support Aircraft 

The committee fully supports the Air Force’s Light Air Support 

(LAS) aircraft concept to equip the Afghan National Army Air 

Corps (ANAAC) and other emerging partners but is concerned that 

the pre-solicitation notice for the LAS aircraft includes non-essential technical requirements that increase cost, inhibit competition, 

and impose avoidable long-term logistical and maintenance challenges on the recipient air corps. As with any procurement, the 

committee believes that requirements should focus on demonstrated survivability and mission performance, while reducing 

cost and follow-on maintenance and logistics requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to review 

the requirements for the LAS and ensure that any invitation for 

bids or request for proposals clearly articulate the ANAAC capability and performance requirements and not overly prescriptive or 

non-essential requirements. The Secretary shall inform the congressional defense committees of the results of his review and a 

justification of requirements for the LAS at least 30 days prior to 

issuance of a final request for proposal. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
382 

Annual Report on Security Developments Involving the People’s 

Republic of China 

Section 1246 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) expanded the scope of the Annual 

Department of Defense Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China to include information on developments regarding U.S. engagement and cooperation with China on security 

matters, including through military-to-military contacts, and the 

U.S. strategy for such engagement and cooperation in the future. 

The report was due on March 1, 2010. The committee is disappointed that the report has not been delivered, as the information provided by the Administration in this report will inform the 

committee’s assessments on a range of critical matters involving 

China. The committee requests that the Department of Defense 

submit the report to the committee at the earliest possible date, 

and in the interim, provide the committee with complete and timely information on all significant security developments involving 

China. 

Concerns Regarding Iraqi Contractor Employees 

The committee is concerned that as United States forces in the 

Republic of Iraq begin to redeploy out of Iraq, Iraqi citizens who 

were employed by United States contractors in Iraq to support U.S. 

efforts in that country could face potential retribution for their 

service. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to look into 

the status of these former contract employees and provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on his findings. 

Countering Narcotics in Afghanistan 

Although there has been a slight decrease in opium cultivation 

over the last two years, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan produces more opium than any other country in the world. The committee notes that the preponderance of Afghan opium cultivation 

remains in southern Afghanistan and that there is a strong correlation between the insurgency and narcotics cultivation and trade. 

The committee is concerned that funding gained from the opium 

trade continues to be a significant source of funding for the insurgency as well as a basis of corruption within the government of Afghanistan. To build upon and perpetuate security gains in Afghanistan and establish conditions for stability and economic prosperity, 

the United States must work together with its coalition partners 

and the Afghan government to disrupt the link between narcotics 

and the insurgency. Such efforts should focus on reducing the funding the insurgency receives from the narcotics industry and assisting the Afghan government’s efforts to eliminate the nexus between 

narcotics and corruption. 

The committee commends 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-Qa’ida, and other terrorist and insurgent groups in Afghanistan. The committee notes that the ATFC and related organizations have helped Afghan authorities investigate individuals connected to the opium trade, identify outside sympathizers who have 

been supplying funding to those individuals, and police a variety of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
383 

corrupt schemes that have filled the coffers of the Taliban-led insurgency and other illicit actors. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue 

to support U.S. interagency efforts, such as those of the AFTC, to: 

reduce opium cultivation; interdict narcotics and precursor materials; disrupt narcotic networks, traffickers, and facilities; and improve Afghan capacity to counter the illicit narcotics industry in Afghanistan. The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense 

to continue to work with his North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

counterparts to enhance their efforts in reducing the narcotics cultivation, production, and trafficking in Afghanistan. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue to keep the 

committee apprised of the Department’s progress with regard to 

these efforts. 

Counterinsurgency Efforts in Pakistan 

The committee welcomes recent efforts by the Government of the 

Islamic Republic of Pakistan to address terrorist and other extremist elements located within Pakistan. The committee also recognizes the importance of building the counterinsurgency capabilities 

of Pakistan’s security forces, and encourages effective management, 

execution and oversight of United States funds for these purposes, 

including funds transferred to the Department of Defense from the 

Department of State Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities 

Fund (PCCF). 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees by April 10, 2011, a report on the 

management, execution and oversight of funds transferred to the 

Department of Defense from the PCCF. The report should include 

a description of the following: 

(1) The spending plan of the United States Central Command for fiscal year 2011 for funds transferred to the Department of Defense from the PCCF. 

(2) Any delays in transfers of PCCF funds to the Office of the 

Defense Representative for Pakistan (ODRP). 

(3) A description of any goals, objectives, or emerging requirements that the ODRP was not able to meet as a result of 

any delays in transfers of PCCF funds to the ODRP. 

(4) Any other information relevant to the management, execution, and oversight of funds transferred to the Department 

of Defense from the PCCF. 

Cyber Attacks Involving China 

The committee is concerned about recent reports of highly sophisticated and targeted cyber attacks originating from the People’s Republic of China, including the widely publicized attacks against 

Google and other large companies. Such cyber attacks undermine 

the ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace, which is critical in a modern society and economy. The committee welcomes the 

Administration’s efforts to actively address these issues with China 

and requests that the Administration keep the committee fully informed of significant developments. 

The committee also notes that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities has conducted close overVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
384 

sight throughout the last year on a broad range of cyber-security 

issues, including those involving China. The committee commends 

the Administration, and the Department of Defense in particular, 

for actively working to address the nation’s cyber-security challenges. The committee notes that the establishment of a Defense 

Industrial Base Task Force to promote collaboration and information-sharing between government and industry, as well as the incorporation of new rules within the defense federal acquisition regulations to require enhanced incident reporting, are particularly 

positive actions. 

Future Agreements With the Government of Iraq 

The committee notes that the ‘‘Agreement Between the United 

States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of 

United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq’’ will expire on 

January 1, 2012. The committee further notes that the United 

States and the Republic of Iraq have signed a ‘‘Strategic Framework Agreement for a Relationship of Friendship and Cooperation 

Between the United States and the Republic of Iraq’’ that calls for 

continued cooperation in a number of areas between the United 

States and Iraq. The committee believes that such continued cooperation is in the interests of both nations and encourages the Administration and the new Government of Iraq, when it is seated, 

to continue to look for ways to continue and enhance such cooperation. The committee further believes that such cooperation should, 

with the redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end 

of 2011, assume the nature of normal nation-to-nation relations. 

Pursuant to that objective, the committee believes that any future 

agreement with the Government of Iraq that permits the stationing 

of any United States forces in Iraq, for any reason including training and advising Iraqi forces or for other purposes, assumes the 

character of typical Status of Forces Agreements such as the 

United States has with many other nations, including those physical and legal protections for United States forces as are typical 

and necessary to protect United States service members from malicious prosecution and physical danger. Furthermore, the committee 

believes that any such agreement, if it were to make any commitments or guarantees that either party would take military action 

to defend the interests of the other party, must be either enacted 

by an Act of Congress or ratified as a treaty by the United States 

Senate, consistent with the Constitution and the past practice of 

the United States. 

Non-Standard Rotary—Wing Study 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 

placed on order the full complement of Mi-17s necessary to support 

the current October 2011 Afghan National Army (ANA) endstrength target of 171,000. The committee notes that additional 

helicopters may be needed to support the ANA if that end-strength 

target is increased in the future and believes that should such additional helicopters be required, a helicopter manufactured in the 

United States should be included in the options considered. The 

committee further notes that the Department of Defense is conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
385 

ducting a study concerning ‘‘non standard rotary wing’’ requirements, which in part consists of an examination of the future helicopter requirements for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including the possibility of transitioning the Afghan National Army 

Air Corps (ANAAC) to a helicopter manufactured in the United 

States. The committee understands that this part of the study is 

scheduled to be completed around the end of August 2010. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to complete the 

portion of the study regarding helicopters for the ANAAC as expeditiously as possible and to inform the House Committee on Armed 

Services of the recommendations and conclusions included in the 

report not later than October 1, 2010. 

Realignment of U.S. Marines From Japan to Guam 

The committee emphasizes the need to continue implementing 

the realignment of United States Marines from Japan to the territory of Guam, pursuant to a plan that will ensure a long-term presence of United States forces in Japan and transform Guam into a 

hub for security activities in the region. 

The committee notes that the U.S.-Japan security relationship 

has been built on common interests and shared values and provided a foundation for peace, security, stability, and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region since the end of World War II. 

However, the committee emphasizes the relationship must continue 

to evolve to address changes in the security environment and other 

areas. The committee believes the Guam realignment will help ensure that the U.S.-Japan relationship continues to be an integral 

part of the region’s strategic landscape, with benefits for both countries and indeed countries throughout the world. Moreover, the 

committee emphasizes that the Guam realignment rightly acknowledges the strategic importance of Guam to regional and global security interests. 

The committee supports the Administration’s efforts with respect 

to the Guam realignment. The committee also notes that it includes a number of provisions elsewhere in this Act that are intended to facilitate the realignment. The committee requests that 

the Department of Defense keep the committee fully informed of 

significant developments with respect to the Guam realignment, including any changes to funding requirements. 

Resources for Success in Afghanistan and Policy Against Arbitrary 

Limitations on Deployed Personnel 

The committee notes that on December 1, 2009, the President 

announced that the United States would deploy an additional 

30,000 troops to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee welcomes the long overdue deployment of additional forces 

to meet mission requirements and further notes that United States 

force levels are expected to approach 98,000 by August 2010, which 

is nearly three times the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan 

on January 1, 2009. The committee has requested testimony from 

several senior officials of the Department of Defense regarding the 

flow of United States forces authorized to deploy to Afghanistan. 

The committee has worked in this manner to ensure U.S. force levVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00413 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
386 

els are not limited in an arbitrary manner that would hamper the 

deployment of critical combat enablers, including force protection. 

The committee is disturbed to have received some reports contrary to the public testimony of senior Department of Defense officials, and continues to hear from personnel deployed to Afghanistan and in briefings that there is the perception of an arbitrary 

limit on the number of forces that can be deployed to Afghanistan, 

and that such a limit may have hampered the ability of commanders to deploy needed capabilities. The committee believes that 

the United States should have a policy to devote all necessary resources for success in Afghanistan and a policy against arbitrary 

limitations on deployed personnel. Thus, the committee is troubled 

by the perception that United States force levels are limited in an 

arbitrary manner and the committee is determined to ensure that 

all necessary actions are taken to ensure that this perception does 

not interfere with the success of the mission in Afghanistan. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address the 

perception of an arbitrary limit on United States force levels in Afghanistan among personnel in Afghanistan and in the Department 

of Defense that has caused delays or complications in fielding needed capabilities or additional assets for force protection and other 

important missions. The committee directs the Secretary to submit 

a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2010, on the 

steps taken to ensure that the perception of an arbitrary limit on 

United States force levels in Afghanistan does not jeopardize mission success. 

Security Concerns Involving North Korea 

The committee remains concerned by the nuclear and missile activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which constitute a threat to international peace and security and are in blatant defiance of the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council. 

The committee supports U.N. Security Council actions, which 

condemn North Korea’s reckless and threatening provocations and 

confirm that they violate international law. The committee also 

supports actions by the Administration that urge North Korea to 

verifiably abandon its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and 

their means of delivery, and refrain from further provocations in 

this regard. This includes efforts to work with U.S. allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks and other members of the U.N. Security Council to achieve the verifiable elimination of the North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and the reduction of tensions on the 

Korean Peninsula. 

The committee continues to carefully monitor the security situation on the Korean Peninsula and in the region and encourages the 

Department of Defense and the interagency to keep the committee 

fully informed of significant developments. 

Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for 

Afghanistan 

The committee remains seriously concerned about instability in 

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the implications for U.S. national security and security in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
387 

and the region. The committee notes that it has held hearings and 

briefings throughout the last year on a range of security issues involving Pakistan, including: 

(1) The security situation in Pakistan’s border areas, and 

any implications for Afghanistan; 

(2) Internal instability in Pakistan, including increasing militant attacks in the country’s settled areas; 

(3) The security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, including the 

command and control structure; 

(4) Counterterrorism operations by Pakistan’s military; 

(5) Pakistan-India tensions following the November 2008 terrorist bombings in Mumbai, Republic of India; 

(6) U.S. strategy and policy involving Pakistan, including 

measures of progress toward achieving goals and objectives; 

(7) U.S. efforts to increase the counterinsurgency capabilities 

of Pakistan’s security forces, U.S.-Pakistan intelligence sharing, and Pakistan’s counternarcotics activities; 

(8) U.S. military and other security-related assistance for 

Pakistan, and possible limits, conditions, and performance requirements relating to such assistance; 

(9) Department of Defense Coalition Support Fund reimbursements to Pakistan and possible alternatives that could 

achieve the same goals and objectives; 

(10) The effectiveness of the Department of Defense Pakistan 

Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF), including the management 

and execution of funds transferred from the Department of 

State Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF) 

to the PCF; and 

(11) Information regarding possible U.S. military involvement in Pakistan. 

The committee welcomes the Administration’s efforts to prioritize 

issues involving Pakistan, its commitment to strengthening the 

U.S.-Pakistan partnership, and increasing U.S.-Pakistan cooperation on shared security goals. The committee believes the Administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, its appointment of a U.S. Special Representative for the two countries, and its 

regional approach to issues involving Pakistan are positive developments. The committee also appreciates the Administration’s efforts 

to improve the effectiveness of U.S. funding and other assistance 

for Pakistan, including efforts to achieve the appropriate balance 

between military and non-military assistance. 

However, the committee emphasizes that implementation of the 

Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, measures of effectiveness, and accountability are also critical, as well as close cooperation with Pakistan in these areas. 

The committee also notes that the Administration continues to 

request significant funding from Congress and the American people 

for efforts in Pakistan. The committee will continue to conduct vigorous oversight of such Department of Defense funding, to ensure 

that the funding achieves its intended goals and objectives and is 

not without limits. 

The committee requests that the Department of the Defense and 

the inter-agency keep the committee fully informed on all significant security developments involving Pakistan. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
388 

Support for United States Special Operations Forces During the 

Redeployment of United States Armed Forces From Iraq 

The committee is aware that the force disposition and operational tempo of United States Special Operations Forces (USSOF) 

in the Republic of Iraq will continue unabated during the responsible redeployment of conventional United States armed forces from 

Iraq. The committee is further aware that both USSOF and Iraqi 

Special Operations Forces (ISOF) utilize many key enabling assets 

currently being provided by United States conventional forces that 

may be withdrawn as part of the redeployment, including engineering, rotary aircraft, logisticians, communications, intelligence analysts, forensic analysts, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. The committee is concerned that a loss of 

many key conventional enabling assets could adversely impact 

USSOF and ISOF operations and degrade ISOF capacity development in critical special operations mission areas. The committee 

therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the appropriate officials to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 

Armed Services by October 1, 2010, on: the level of support currently provided by United States armed forces to ISOF; the requirement for ISOF and USSOF support between October 1, 2010, 

and December 31, 2011; measures taken to ensure that ISOF and 

USSOF operational and logistical requirements and equities are 

fully considered during redeployment of United States armed forces 

from Iraq; and on measures taken to ensure that current and future USSOF requirements and equities are incorporated into the 

political-military negotiations and frameworks established to support U.S.-Iraqi relations post-December 31, 2011. 

Transition in Iraq 

The committee notes that the mission of the United States military and the Department of Defense in the Republic of Iraq has entered a period of substantial transition. This transition includes the 

redeployment of over 40,000 U.S. servicemembers and their equipment over the next few months, leading to all uniformed personnel 

being redeployed from Iraq by the end of 2011. Although concerns 

with this redeployment remain, the committee congratulates the 

Department, the commanders in the field, and the uniformed personnel of the armed forces for their successful actions to date to 

make this redeployment run smoothly. However, well over 1,000 

programs, projects, and activities must still be concluded or transferred to other agencies of the United States Government, other 

international organizations, or the Government of Iraq. While some 

of these activities are relatively minor, there are a number of activities including transferring responsibility for training and advising Iraqi police that could have a substantial impact on the future 

development of Iraq and U.S.-Iraqi relations. Furthermore, many if 

not most of these projects, programs, and activities will likely need 

to be transferred over a relatively short period of time before too 

many U.S. forces redeploy, a time frame which also includes the 

ongoing process to seat a new government in Iraq and the associated risk of increased violence. These concurrent events could substantially complicate such transitions and increase overall tension. 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
389 

a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 

2010, outlining those activities, programs, and projects that must 

be transferred or concluded, an estimated timeline for such transfers to take place, and a description of problems in transferring or 

concluding program, projects, and activities that have been encountered to date and what steps have been taken to remedy those 

issues. 

United States Africa Command Intelligence and Knowledge 

Development Directorate 

The committee is aware that United States Africa Command 

(USAFRICOM) has developed an innovative approach for the analysis and integration of social science research to complement and 

amplify traditional intelligence products. The committee remains 

supportive of the use of social science research to support operational missions within the Department of Defense, as well as the 

development of organic social science expertise. The committee is 

aware that USAFRICOM’s Intelligence and Knowledge Development (IKD) Directorate not only addresses those issues, but does 

it in a way that sets it apart from similar efforts, such as the 

Army’s Human Terrain System (HTS). The IKD Directorate addresses certain USAFRICOM requirements by shaping the pre-crisis, pre-conflict environment in cooperation with joint, interagency, 

and international partners. The committee notes that the structure 

of the IKD Directorate indirectly addresses the perception that social scientists are supporting kinetic targeting of people or groups 

by maintaining a clear divide between the traditional intelligence 

function and the social science research function. Whereas HTS 

blends these functions in a tactical environment, the social science 

component of IKD carries out its research at a higher echelon and 

provides its analyses as additional input to the traditional intelligence process. The committee recognizes that each approach may 

be appropriate for the circumstances for which it was developed, 

and points to the need for flexible and tailorable approaches as the 

Department of Defense gains a better understanding of how social 

science research can support defense missions. 

U.S. Forces Korea Transfer of Wartime Operational Control of 

Republic of Korea Forces 

The committee continues to conduct oversight of progress under 

the ‘‘opcon transition roadmap’’ by which the Republic of Korea 

(ROK) will take over wartime operational control of ROK forces by 

2012. The committee welcomes progress to date and requests U.S. 

Forces Korea to keep the committee fully informed of developments. 

The committee also welcomes the recent U.S.-ROK ‘‘Joint Vision’’ 

statement, which addresses transformation of the alliance from one 

primarily focused on defending against a North Korean attack to 

an alliance in which the United States and the ROK cooperate on 

a broad range of regional and global issues. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
390 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING

Section 1201—Expansion of Authority for Support of Special 

Operations To Combat Terrorism 

This section would increase the amount of funds available to the 

Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals supporting or facilitating military operations by U.S. Special Operations Forces to combat terrorism from $40.0 million to $50.0 million. 

The Secretary of Defense would exercise this authority and operations would be funded through the U.S. Special Operations Command with operations and maintenance funds in accordance with 

the procedures established by the Secretary of Defense on March 

29, 2005. 

Section 1202—Addition of Allied Government Agencies to 

Enhanced Logistics Interoperability Authority 

This section would amend section 127d of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide logistic support, supplies, and services to allied governmental logistics, security, or similar agencies, other than military forces, if the United 

States Armed Forces will benefit from such provision. 

Section 1203—Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating 

to Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces 

This section would amend section 1206 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as 

amended by section 1206 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) by increasing the amount authorized for ‘‘global train and equip’’ (also 

known as ‘‘1206’’) programs to $500.0 million. This section would 

also increase the temporary limitation on the amount available to 

build the capacity of foreign military forces to participate in or support military and stability operations to $100.0 million. 

The committee is concerned about the rise of al Qa’ida in the 

Arabian Peninsula and recognizes that the Republic of Yemen is a 

strategic partner in combating that organization. The committee 

understands that the most capable counter-terrorism force in 

Yemen resides within the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) and that 

‘‘1206’’ programs have been limited to a foreign nation’s Ministry 

of Defense (MOD) forces. The committee wants to provide the Secretary of Defense authority to train and equip the Yemeni MOI 

counter-terrorism forces, but is also aware of the ongoing interagency effort within the United States Government to take a holistic look at the security assistance and security cooperation authorities that current law provides both the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of State in an effort to determine the proper mix and 

design of these authorities in the future. 

Therefore, this section would require that the Secretary of Defense transfer to the Secretary of State $75.0 million for the purpose of providing assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export 

Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) to build the capacity of the counterVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00418 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
391 

terrorism forces of the Yemeni MOI, provided that, not later than 

July 31, 2011, the Secretary of State certifies that the Department 

of State is able to effectively provide that assistance. If the Secretary of State is unable to issue such a certification, then the Secretary of Defense may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State and subject to the standard procedures of section ‘‘1206’’ authority, use that $75.0 million only for the purposes of training and 

equipping those Yemeni MOI forces. The committee notes that this 

does not preclude the Secretary of Defense from conducting additional train and equip programs with Yemeni MOD forces. 

Additionally, the committee is aware of the report by the Government Accountability Office entitled ‘‘DOD and State Need to Improve Sustainment Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation for 

Section 1206 and 1207 Assistance Programs’’ and encourages the 

Department of Defense and the Department of State to jointly formulate mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impact of 1206- 

funded assistance to a recipient country, including the impact on 

overall security and stability of the country. Lastly, the committee 

has recently become more concerned about the sustainment plans 

for equipment provided to foreign nations through ‘‘1206’’ programs 

once the initial sustainment packages provided at the time the 

equipment is delivered are depleted, and the committee will in the 

future require much greater detail on the long-term sustainment 

plans during the Congressional notification process. 

Section 1204—Air Force Scholarships for Partnership for Peace Nations To Participate in the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training 

Program 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a demonstration scholarship program to allow Partnership 

for Peace countries to participate in pilot and other types of training through the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program. It 

would require a report on the status of the program not later than 

February 1, 2015. 

SUBTITLE B—MATTERS RELATING TO IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND

PAKISTAN

Section 1211—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain 

Purposes Relating to Iraq 

This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by this 

Act to establish permanent United States military installations or 

bases in the Republic of Iraq or to exercise United States control 

of the oil resources of Iraq. 

Section 1212—Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

This section would amend section 1202 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 106–163), as 

amended most recently by section 1212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), to modify 

the authorized level of funding for the activities of the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program. This section would authorize $900.0 million for activities in Fiscal Year 2011. This secVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
392 

tion would also require quarterly reports by the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 1213—Modification of Authority for Reimbursement to Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States 

Military Operations 

This section would modify section 1233 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as 

amended by section 1223 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation for (a) 

logistical, military, and other support provided by that nation to or 

in connection with U.S. military operations in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom; or (b) logistical and military support provided by that nation to confront the threat posed 

by al’Qaida, the Taliban, and other militant extremists in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Coalition Support Fund reimbursements). The total amount of reimbursements made under this authority during fiscal year 2011 would not exceed $1.6 billion. The 

congressional notice and reporting requirements under section 1233 

of Public Law 110–181, as amended by section 1223 of Public Law 

111–84, would apply to Coalition Support Fund reimbursements 

authorized by this section. 

Section 1214—Modification of Report on Responsible Redeployment 

of United States Armed Forces From Iraq 

This section would modify reports concerning United States involvement in the Republic of Iraq to better focus reporting requirements on the redeployment of United States forces out of Iraq, the 

transition of activities and programs currently conducted by the 

Department of Defense in Iraq to other agencies of the United 

States Government or the Government of Iraq, and the development of those military capabilities that the Secretary of Defense 

deems necessary to allow for the Government of Iraq to provide for 

its own defense. This section would require that the Secretary of 

Defense provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State to submit 

with the report any additional information that the Secretary of 

State deems important. This section would also repeal the report 

required by section 1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) as amended, and the report required by section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

Section 1215—Modification of Reports Relating to Afghanistan 

This section would modify the report required by section 1230 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) by requiring a discussion of those conditions and 

criteria that would need to exist in key districts and across the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to meet United States and coalition 

goals in Afghanistan and the region, permit the transition of lead 

security responsibility in key districts to the Government of Afghanistan, and permit the redeployment of United States Armed 

Forces from Afghanistan. This section would further modify the report by requiring that with respect to each performance indicator 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
393 

and measure of progress, it should include a description of the conditions that would lead the Secretary of Defense to conclude that 

the indicator or measure of progress had been achieved. 

Section 1216—No Permanent Military Bases in Afghanistan 

This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by this 

Act to establish permanent United States military installations in 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Section 1217—Authority To Use Funds for Reintegration Activities 

in Afghanistan 

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to use up to $50.0 million to carry out a program designed 

to reintegrate former low-level Taliban fighters into Afghan society. 

Such authority would be subject to a certification made by the Secretary of State that such a reintegration program is necessary to 

support the goals of the United States in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan and that the Department of State and the United 

States Agency for International Development are unable to carry 

out a similar program of reintegration because of the security environment in certain areas, or for other reasons. This section would 

also require that the Secretary of Defense submit the guidance to 

be used to carry out the program and a quarterly report concerning 

the activities carried out under this section. 

Section 1218—One-Year Extension of Pakistan Counterinsurgency 

Fund 

This section would amend section 1224(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), 

by extending the Department of Defense Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) through fiscal year 2011. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense has 

requested this authority in order to address fiscal and legal issues 

associated with the transfer of responsibilities for Pakistan counterinsurgency funds to the Department of State for Fiscal Year 

2011. 

The committee further understands that such request is not intended to alter the agreement between the Secretary of Defense 

and the Secretary of State regarding such transfer of responsibilities. 

Moreover, the committee notes that the Department of Defense 

has not requested additional funding for the PCF for Fiscal Year 

2011, and expects that any additional funding will be transferred 

to the PCF from the Department of State Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund. 

The committee encourages strong coordination between the Department of Defense and the Department of State on costs associated with execution of the PCF; and requests that the Department 

of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, keep the 

relevant committees fully informed of such costs and related issues. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
394 

Section 1219—Authority To Use Funds To Provide Support to Coalition Forces Supporting Military and Stability Operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan 

This section would authorize the Department of Defense to spend 

up to $400.0 million from funds made available for operations and 

maintenance on lift and sustainment for coalition forces supporting 

operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit 

quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on the 

support provided under this authority. 

Section 1220—Requirement To Provide United States Brigade and 

Equivalent Units Deployed to Afghanistan with the Commensurate Level of Unit and Theater-Wide Combat Enablers 

This section would establish a policy and would require the Secretary of Defense to provide each United States brigade and equivalent units deployed to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with 

the commensurate level of unit and theater-wide combat enablers, 

including Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, force protection, including force protection at U.S. Forward Operating 

Bases, and medical evacuation. This section would further require 

a report describing: The requests for forces submitted by United 

States Forces-Afghanistan for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010; 

the current troop-to-task analysis; the number of United States brigade and equivalent units deployed to Afghanistan; and information regarding the number of United States unit and theater-wide 

combat enablers. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1231—NATO Special Operations Coordination Center 

This section would increase the amount of authorized funds 

available to the Secretary of Defense to support the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Special Operations Coordination Center from 

$30.0 million to $50.0 million. 

Section 1232—National Military Strategic Plan To Counter Iran 

This section would require that the Secretary of Defense develop 

a National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran. This section 

would further require that the Secretary of Defense develop a plan 

to address any gaps in capabilities identified as part of the planning and review process. Finally, this section would require a report to Congress identifying and justifying any resources, capabilities, legislative authorities, or changes to current law the Secretary 

believes are necessary to address the gaps in capabilities. 

Section 1233—Report on Department of Defense’s Plans To Reform 

the Export Control System 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and 

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Department of DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
395 

fense’s plans to reform the Department’s export control system. The 

report would include a description of plans to reform the export 

control system and an assessment of the plans’ impact on the Department. 

Section 1234—Report on the United States Efforts To Defend 

Against Threats Posed by the Advanced Anti-Access Capability of 

Potentially Hostile Foreign Countries 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not later 

than April 1, 2011, to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a report on 

the United States’ efforts to defend against threats posed by the 

anti-access capabilities of potentially hostile foreign countries. The 

report should include a description of any efforts by the Department of Defense to address findings in the Department’s 2010 

Quadrennial Defense Review regarding advanced anti-access capabilities of foreign countries, including any efforts to: 

(1) Develop a joint air-sea battle concept; 

(2) Expand future long-range strike capabilities; 

(3) Exploit advantages in subsurface operations; 

(4) Increase the resiliency of United States forward posture and 

base infrastructure; 

(5) Ensure access to space and the use of space assets; 

(6) Enhance the robustness of key Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities; 

(7) Ensure access within the cyber domain; 

(8) Develop regional missile defense architecture; 

(9) Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems; and 

(10) Enhance the presence and responsiveness of United States 

military forces abroad. 

For the purposes of this section, to the extent possible, the committee encourages the Department to utilize information provided 

to Congress in the Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China, required by section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 (Public Law 106–65), as most recently amended by section 

1246 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84;) and the Annual Report on the Military 

Power of Iran as required by Section 1245 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Section 1235—Report on Force Structure Changes in Composition 

and Capabilities at Military Installations in Europe 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report, not later than one year after enactment of this Act, on evaluating potential changes in the composition and capabilities of 

units of the United States armed forces in European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House 

Committee on Foreign Affairs. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
396 

Section 1236—Sense of Congress on Missile Defense and New 

START Treaty With Russian Federation 

This section would express a sense of the Congress that: (1) there 

would be no limitations on any phase of the phased, adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe resulting from ratification of 

the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United 

States and the Russian Federation, signed on April 8, 2010; (2) the 

United States should deploy the phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe to protect the United States, its deployed 

forces, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, after 

appropriate testing and consistent with NATO policy; and (3) the 

ground-based midcourse defense system in Alaska and California 

should be maintained, evolved, and appropriately tested because it 

is the only missile defense capability as of the date of the enactment of this Act that would protect the United States from the 

growing threat of a long-range ballistic missile attack. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $522.5 million for fiscal year 2011, representing an increase of $98.4 million from the 

amount authorized in fiscal year 2010, excluding any supplemental 

funds. The request contained the following decreases: $5.5 million 

for nuclear weapons storage security in the Russian Federation; 

$1.4 million for nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia; 

$11.1 million for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation 

prevention in states of the former Soviet Union (FSU); and $17.0 

million for new CTR initiatives. The request also contained the following increases: $0.3 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia; $56.9 million for biological threat reduction in the 

FSU; $74.5 million for global nuclear lockdown; and $1.6 million for 

other assessments and administrative costs. 

The committee supports the goals of the CTR Program and continues to believe that the Program is critical to U.S. national security and must be a top priority. In past years, the committee has 

expressed concern that a lack of effective policy guidance and leadership, as well as programmatic and funding constraints, have limited the progress of the CTR Program. The committee has also 

noted that despite the significant achievements of the CTR Program over more than 10 years, much remains to be done, and has 

emphasized the need for a strong national commitment to reinvigorate the CTR Program. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181), the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), and the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) addressed these concerns by: repealing limitations on 

the use of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority outside the FSU; 

increasing CTR funding, including funding for new CTR initiatives; 

requiring reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new CTR initiatives and 

CTR metrics; requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
397 

garding efforts to complete the chemical weapons destruction 

project at Shchuch’ye, Russia; requiring increased reporting from 

the Secretary of Defense on CTR defense and military contacts; 

providing CTR programs with authority for urgent threat reduction 

activities; authorizing the CTR Program to accept international 

contributions; and including other provisions to ensure that wherever possible, the CTR Program addresses threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise. 

In addition, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–53), commonly known as 

‘‘the 9/11 bill,’’ included a number of provisions and authorized 

funding to accelerate, strengthen, and expand the CTR Program. 

The committee welcomes the President’s efforts to reinvigorate 

the CTR Program and ensure it is a top priority going forward. 

This includes the President’s effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear 

materials within four years to ensure that such materials do not 

fall into the hands of terrorists; the Nuclear Security Summit; and 

other efforts to accelerate, strengthen, and expand CTR activities. 

This Act specifically supports the President’s goals and objectives 

for the CTR Program, and encourages these programs to maintain 

a particular focus on securing WMD and related materials and 

technologies at the source wherever possible. 

The committee authorizes $522.5 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Biological Threat Reduction 

The committee continues to recognize the importance of biological threat reduction activities to U.S. national security interests 

and believes the United States should be actively engaged in this 

area. However, the committee also believes that the Biological 

Threat Reduction Program (BTRP) under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program should be guided by a comprehensive long-term interagency strategy for biological 

threat reduction and requires: robust interagency engagement and 

coordination; rigorous Department management and oversight; coordination and integration with other Department programs and 

activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress. 

The committee welcomes current efforts by the Department of 

Defense to restructure and strengthen BTRP activities, including in 

the area of metrics and interagency engagement and coordination 

to ensure that the Department is the appropriate agency to undertake such activities. The committee encourages the Department to 

keep the committee fully informed of developments with respect to 

this effort. The committee also encourages the Department to 

maintain a strong focus within the CTR Program on other threat 

reduction challenges, including preventing the proliferation of 

chemical and nuclear weapons and weapons-related materials, 

technologies, and expertise. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
398 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and Military Contacts 

Program 

Section 1304 of the National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) amended the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) annual report to include additional information on the CTR Defense and Military Contacts program. It 

also required the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Defense 

and Military Contacts program is: strategically used to advance the 

mission of the CTR Program; focused and expanded to support specific relationship-building opportunities, which could lead to CTR 

Program development in new geographic areas and achieve other 

CTR Program benefits; directly administered as part of the CTR 

Program; and includes, within an overall strategic framework, cooperation and coordination with the unified combatant commands 

that operate in areas in which CTR activities are carried out, and 

with related diplomatic efforts. 

The committee welcomes recent efforts by the Department in this 

regard, and encourages the Department to actively consult with the 

committee and to keep the committee fully informed of developments in this area. 

Metrics for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 

The committee continues to emphasize the importance of concrete metrics for measuring the impact and effectiveness of activities under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to address 

threats arising from the proliferation of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons and weapons-related materials, technologies, and 

expertise. The committee welcomes recent efforts by the Department in this regard, and encourages the Department of Defense to 

actively consult with the committee and to keep the committee 

fully informed of developments in this area. 

New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181), the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), and the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) authorized a new funding line for new Cooperative 

Threat Reduction Program initiatives in order to strengthen and 

expand the CTR Program. Such funding was accompanied by provisions in Public Law 110–181, which specified the uses for such 

funding and required reports from the National Academy of 

Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new 

CTR initiatives that could enable the CTR Program to be more 

flexible, responsive, and effective in addressing threats arising from 

the proliferation of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, and 

weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise. 

The committee welcomes the Administration’s efforts to undertake new CTR initiatives, and strengthen and expand the program 

in additional ways. Given such efforts, the committee no longer 

finds the new CTR initiatives funding line necessary and does not 

authorize funding under this line for fiscal year 2011. Rather, the 

committee authorizes funding for the CTR Program, including for 

the President’s plan to secure all loose nuclear materials within 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
399 

four years, within the existing program lines in the Department of 

Defense budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee encourages the Department to actively consult 

with the committee and to keep the committee fully informed of 

significant developments as the CTR Program accelerates, 

strengthens, and expands its activities. 

Shchuch’ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project 

The committee is pleased that the chemical weapons destruction 

facility in the Russian Federation at Shchuch’ye is currently operating at full capacity. This has been a flagship project for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and 

in past years the committee has conducted vigorous oversight of 

the project. The committee welcomes recent efforts by the Department to ensure the sustainability of the project, and encourages the 

Department to keep the committee fully informed of developments 

in this regard. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Programs and Funds 

This section would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and specify 

that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation for three fiscal 

years. 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations 

This section would allocate specific amounts for each program 

element under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program from within the overall $522.5 million that 

the committee would authorize for the CTR Program. The allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget request 

for fiscal year 2011. This section would also require notification to 

Congress 15 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011 funds for purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition, this section would provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a program element under the CTR 

Program in excess of the amount specifically authorized for that 

purpose. 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Department of Defense Inspector General Growth Plan 

The budget request contained $283.4 million for the Department 

of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG). 

The committee is aware of the important role of the Department 

of Defense Inspector General. The inspector general improves the 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DOD personnel, programs 

and operations, and helps to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
400 

The committee is aware that a plan for increasing DOD IG audit 

and investigative capabilities was published March 31, 2008. This 

plan required increased resources for it to be fully implemented, 

and Congress provided these resources in fiscal years 2008–10. The 

committee is concerned that the Department of Defense Inspector 

General is funded below the level required to meet the growth plan 

in fiscal year 2011. The committee believes the Department has 

had sufficient time to assimilate the requirements of the IG growth 

plan and is disappointed that the Department has failed to fully resource the IG requirements. The committee expects the Secretary 

of Defense to provide the necessary resources to this critical function in future budget requests. 

The committee recommends $283.4 million, the amount of the request. 

Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 

The committee is aware that the Defense Energy Supply Center 

(DESC) faces mounting deficiencies in its aging fuel infrastructure. 

The committee is concerned that high fuel prices in recent years 

may have contributed to deferred investment in DESC facilities’ 

upkeep due to resource constraints. The committee is aware that 

recent estimates indicate a need for $561.7 million to $774.8 million per year for sustainment, restoration and modernization for 

fuel infrastructure from fiscal year 2011–15. This reflects an increase of approximately $300 million to $400 million per year, 

based on estimates submitted with the fiscal year 2010 budget request. The committee is also aware that as infrastructure requirements mount, the costs are passed through to fuel customers 

through the operating cost component of the standard price of fuel. 

In fiscal year 2011, this component will be $16.73 per barrel, an 

increase of $6.55 from the amount in fiscal year 2010. 

The committee encourages the Defense Energy Supply Center 

and the Defense Logistics Agency to plan and budget for fuel infrastructure sustainment requirements, and includes a provision elsewhere in this title that would require the Director of the Defense 

Logistics Agency to submit a plan for addressing fuel infrastructure 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization requirements. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY PROGRAMS

Section 1401—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize $161.0 million for Working Capital Funds and $1.3 billion for Defense Working Capital Fund, Defense 

Commissary. 

Section 1402—Study on Working Capital Fund Cash Balances 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to contract 

with a federally funded research and development center, within 30 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, to carry out an independent review of each working capital fund within the Department of Defense to ascertain the appropriate cash corpus required 

to maintain good financial management of the funds. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
401 

The committee notes that current Department of Defense fiscal 

policy for all working capital funds is to maintain a 7-day minimum and 10-day maximum cash balance. The committee believes 

that this three-day cash corpus is outdated and arbitrary and does 

not take into account increased activity due to contingency operations or fluctuations in commodity markets outside of the Department’s control. The committee is concerned that maintaining this 

narrow cash corpus tolerance may not allow for successful longterm financial management of the funds in today’s dynamic environment. 

The committee is disappointed with the lack of effort the Department exhibited in generating the report that was required in the 

committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The committee’s 

intent was to provide an avenue for the Department to review its 

restrictive financial management policies regarding the required 

cash corpus to allow the Department to rectify chronic fiscal issues. 

Rather than dedicating sufficient effort to propose methods to correct this habitual error, the Department submitted a three-page report with minimal information and recommendations. The committee notes that the recommendations included maintaining the 

status quo and a request that Congress provide the Department 

with specific authorities which were previously denied due to restrictions mandated by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344). 

The committee anticipates that the independent reviews required 

by this section would provide recommendations to improve management of the Department’s working capital funds and assist in 

bringing in best business practices from the private sector for the 

successful management of each fund. 

Section 1403—Modification of Certain Working Capital Fund 

Requirements 

This section would amend section 2208(c)(1) of title 10, United 

States Code, to allow supplies developed through continuous technology refreshment (CTR) to be purchased with working capital 

funds and would amend section 2208(k)(2) of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase the expense or investment threshold to $250,000. 

The committee notes that Army Regulation 700–127, paragraph 

5–23f, states that CTR will be addressed as part of the post-production support strategy to provide a means to acquire technologically 

improved replacement parts and to reduce ownership costs. The 

committee views CTR as a necessary and vital aspect of weapon 

system sustainment and a primary means for technology insertion 

in post-production equipment where supply is affected by aging 

technology, obsolescence, poor reliability, excessive cost, or unavailability. The committee intends that development of the CTR solution will consist of a business case analysis, specifications, and engineering drawings achieved through either research, development, 

test and evaluation; sustainment systems technical support; or industry investment. The established form-fit-function CTR replacement solution can then be translated to hardware and qualified, 

and then procured with working capital funds to improve reliability 

and maintainability, extend useful life, enhance safety, reduce 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
402 

maintenance costs, and enable weapon system performance requirements to be maintained. 

The committee believes that by implementing these recommended changes, CTR could enable the military departments to 

make vital progress in resolving critical supply problems affecting 

military readiness. 

Section 1404—Reduction of Unobligated Balances Within the 

Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund 

This section would require the return of $77.0 million of excess 

unobligated balances within the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund to the Miscellaneous Receipts Fund of the 

United States Treasury. 

The committee notes that unobligated balances within the Pentagon Renovation Maintenance Revolving Fund have increased 

threefold since the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Budget materials submitted by the Department of Defense indicate that Pentagon renovation operations will end in fiscal year 2011, yet these 

unobligated balances increase from year to year. Based on fiscal 

year 2011 budget materials, capital purchases for the Pentagon 

renovation decreased from $257.2 million in fiscal year 2009 to 

$16.3 million in fiscal year 2011. Therefore the committee questions the need to maintain $120.0 million in unobligated balances 

as of the end of fiscal year 2011 for this purpose. 

Section 1405—National Defense Sealift Fund 

This section would authorize $934.9 million for the National Defense Sealift Fund. 

Section 1406—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 

Defense 

This section would authorize $1.5 billion for Chemical Agents 

and Munitions Destruction, Defense. 

Section 1407—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 

Defense-Wide 

This section would authorize $1.1 billion for Drug Interdiction 

and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide. 

Section 1408—Defense Inspector General 

This section would authorize $283.4 million for the Department 

of Defense Inspector General. 

Section 1409—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize $31.0 billion for the Defense Health 

Program (DHP) and other programs. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
403 

SUBTITLE B—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Section 1411—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 

Funds 

This section would authorize $41.2 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2011. This 

section would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after Congress receives notification. 

Section 1412—Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for Previously Authorized Disposals from the National Defense Stockpile 

This section would authorize revisions on limitations in asset 

sales contained in section 3402(b)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) as most 

recently amended by section 1412(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 

418) to increase the Department of Defense’s stockpile commodity 

disposal authority from $710.0 million to $730.0 million. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1421—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces 

Retirement Home 

This section would authorize $71.2 million to be appropriated for 

the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal 

year 2011. 

Section 1422—Plan for Funding Fuel Infrastructure Sustainment, 

Restoration, and Modernization Requirements 

This section would require the Director of the Defense Logistics 

Agency to submit to the congressional defense committees a plan 

for addressing fuel infrastructure sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization requirements. The report shall be submitted not 

later than the date on which the President submits to Congress the 

budget for fiscal year 2012, pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 

United States Code. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
404 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here HR491.155
405 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here HR491.156
406 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here HR491.157
407 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here HR491.158
408 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for each fiscal 

year to include: 

(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; 

(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in that 

fiscal year for operations; and 

(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested. 

The committee recommends authorization of $159.3 billion in 

funds to be appropriated available upon enactment of this Act to 

support overseas contingency operations principally associated with 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATION 

The following table summarizes contained in the bill for overseas 

contingency operations. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
409 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here HR491.160
410 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here HR491.161
411 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here HR491.162
412 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here HR491.163
413 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here HR491.164
414 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here HR491.165
415 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here HR491.166
416 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here HR491.167
417 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here HR491.168
418 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here HR491.169
419 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here HR491.170
420 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here HR491.171
421 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here HR491.172
422 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here HR491.173
423 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here HR491.174
424 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here HR491.175
425 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here HR491.176
426 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here HR491.177
427 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here HR491.178
428 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here HR491.179
429 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here HR491.180
430 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here HR491.181
431 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here HR491.182
432 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here HR491.183
433 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here HR491.184
434 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here HR491.185
435 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here HR491.186
436 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here HR491.187
437 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here HR491.188
438 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here HR491.189
439 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here HR491.190
440 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here HR491.191
441 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here HR491.192
442 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here HR491.193
443 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

F–35A Aircraft 

The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations contained $204.9 million for one F–35A aircraft. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force justified the $204.9 million request for one F–35A aircraft, which would 

be delivered in June 2013, as a replacement for the combat loss of 

one legacy aircraft. However, the committee further notes that the 

Department of the Air Force does not plan to declare F–35A initial 

operational capability until 2016 and that for fiscal year 2010, the 

Department plans the early retirement of 250 fighter aircraft. 

The committee believes that the Department of the Air Force 

could choose to delay the retirement of one or more of the 250 

fighter aircraft planned for retirement in fiscal year 2010. 

The committee therefore recommends no funds, a decrease of 

$204.9 million, for one F–35A aircraft. In title I of this Act, the 

budget request for $3.7 billion and 22 F–35A aircraft is authorized. 

Force Protection Measures on United States Forward Operating 

Bases in Afghanistan 

The committee notes that there continues to be a serious indirect 

fire threat to United States and Coalition forces on Forward Operation Bases (FOB) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation 

Enduring Freedom (OEF). The committee understands that certain 

force protection systems to protect FOBs are currently deployed in 

OIF, but not in OEF. The committee has been briefed that the force 

protection systems in OIF have saved hundreds of lives. The committee understands that United States Central Command has a 

validated Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement (JUONS) for 

a capability to sense, warn, and intercept enemy rocket, artillery, 

and mortar fires for OEF similar to the capability that is already 

in OIF. The committee fully supported a reprogramming in support 

of this JUONS in September 2009, and has provided an additional 

$200.0 million elsewhere in this title to address urgent force protection requirements in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, on force protection 

measures implemented by the United States Forces for Afghanistan on United States Forward Operating Bases in Afghanistan. 

The report should include the following information: 

(1) An assessment of the indirect fire threat to FOBs in OEF. 

This assessment should include at a minimum, total rocket 

and mortar attacks for all FOBs, by month, for the last 24 

months, and U.S. and Coalition Killed in Action, and U.S. 

Wounded in Action as a result of such attacks. 

(2) A description of the types and levels of sense, warn, and 

intercept capabilities located at each FOB to protect against indirect fires in OIF for calendar year 2010. 

(3) A description of the types and levels of sense, warn, and 

intercept capabilities located at each FOB to protect against indirect fires in OEF in calendar year 2010, and any pending 

plans to increase such capabilities. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
444 

(4) A description of manning requirements, to include a 

breakdown of military personnel and contractors to support 

OIF sense, warn, and intercept requirements during calendar 

year 2010. 

(5) A description of current or planned manning requirements, to include a breakdown of military personnel and contractors in OEF during calendar year 2010 or beyond to support sense, warn, and intercept capabilities. 

(6) A cost and schedule analysis that compares and contrasts 

the benefits of how sense, warn, and intercept capabilities were 

implemented versus the current plan to implement such capabilities in OEF. Such an analysis should include a description 

of all significant differences in the planned force protection capabilities for OEF and OIF, the impact these differences might 

have on the level of protection provided to U.S. and coalition 

forces/equipment, and the reason for the difference in planned 

force protection implementation between OIF and OEF. 

H–60 Modifications 

The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations contained $81.0 million for H–60 modifications to procure forward 

looking infra-red radars (FLIR) for the HH–60G fleet. 

The committee is informed by program officials that, by using fiscal year 2010 funds to leverage an existing Navy contract, only 

$20.0 million is required to complete the FLIR procurement for the 

HH–60G fleet, including spares. 

The committee therefore recommends $20.0 million, a decrease of 

$61.0 million, for H–60 modifications. The $20.0 million authorized 

is in addition to the $11.6 million authorized in title I of this Act. 

Iraq Security Forces Fund 

The committee recognizes that the Iraq Security Forces Fund 

(ISFF) is an important tool for building a long-term security relationship with the Government of the Republic of Iraq. However, the 

committee has a number of concerns about the budget request for 

the Iraq Security Forces Fund. First, the request appears to be 

largely intended to procure systems and support contracts that the 

Government of Iraq apparently does not consider as priorities and 

has not provided for out of its own funds. In a time of significant 

fiscal constraint in the United States, requests by the Government 

of Iraq for funds for kitchen equipment, office supplies, basic firstaid kits, and other easily obtainable items for Iraqi Security Forces 

(ISF) are less than compelling. Second, the committee is concerned 

that the Government of Iraq may not be fully committed to maintaining those capabilities being provided by the United States, in 

particular those associated with logistics and sustainment. This 

concern is heightened when the Government of Iraq has not contributed financially to the acquisition of such capabilities. Third, 

the committee agrees with the Administration that the United 

States should help Iraq in building a set of ‘‘minimum essential capabilities’’ to provide for internal defense, and a limited capability 

for external defense, prior to the redeployment of all United States 

troops. However, the committee notes that much of the equipment 

that would be purchased with funds in the budget request would 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
445 

not directly contribute to this goal and would likely not be delivered prior to the redeployment of U.S. forces. 

The committee agrees that the support capabilities described in 

the budget justification materials for the ISFF are necessary to increase the effectiveness of the ISF in the long run, but is concerned 

that building consensus in the Government of Iraq that such capabilities are important may take more time than is available prior 

to the redeployment of all United States troops by January 1, 2012. 

Instead, the committee believes the Iraq Security Forces Fund 

should be used to purchase significant military equipment, particularly U.S.-standard equipment, which both governments view as 

vital, to enhance Iraqi capabilities as well as to provide a foundation for a close security relationship in the future. This approach 

would allow the Government of Iraq to contribute some of its own 

funding to build the necessary logistics and sustainment capabilities that it will need in the future. This approach, in turn, would 

increase the likelihood that the Government of Iraq would commit 

to maintaining and supporting such capabilities. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to closely examine 

the budget request for the ISFF program and determine if the current plans are the most appropriate way to build an Iraqi capability to provide for its internal and, to a limited extent, external 

defense prior to the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and to provide the 

basis for a long-term U.S.-Iraq security relationship. 

Marine Corps Radio Systems 

The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 

contained $155.6 million for Marine Corps radio systems. 

The committee notes that $45.2 million was for Enterprise-Land 

Mobile Radio (E-LMR) infrastructure upgrades at training facilities 

in the United States. The committee does not believe these funds 

should be requested in the OCO budget request, and urges the Marine Corps to pursue these funds in the fiscal year 2012 base budget. 

The committee recommends $110.4 million, a decrease of $45.2 

million, for Marine Corps radio systems. The $110.4 million authorized is in addition to the $26.5 million for Marine Corps radio systems authorized in title II of this Act. 

Special Operations Funding for Overseas Operations 

The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations contained $3.5 billion for U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) in support of current and future U.S. Special Operations Forces (USSOF) operations in the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and other locations. 

The committee notes that USSOF operational tempo will remain 

high for the foreseeable future, and strained by ongoing requirements and challenges in the Horn of Africa, the Trans-Saharan region, the Republic of Columbia, and the Republic of the Philippines. 

The committee notes that the list of unfunded requirements it received for USSOCOM procurement is in excess of $410.0 million to 

support USSOF current and future operations indicating significant gaps in these critical areas. The committee understands that 

these unfunded requirements would provide immediate operational 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
446 

and survivability enhancements and improvements, as well as procure additional SOF-peculiar items for USSOF engaged in combat 

operations and indirect missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 

areas. 

The committee recommends $3.8 billion, an increase of $296.5 

million, to support overseas contingency operations for USSOCOM 

and to provide for urgently needed unfunded requirements to include additional tactical vehicles, communications and electronics 

equipment, nonstandard aviation platforms, intelligence systems, 

and classified program areas. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1501—Purpose 

This section would establish this title and make authorization of 

appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in additional to amounts otherwise authorized in 

this Act, to provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency 

operations. 

Section 1502—Army Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $8.9 billion for Army 

procurement. 

Section 1503—Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

This section would authorize the President’s request of $3.5 billion for requirements to defeat improvised explosive devices. 

The committee concurs with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization’s decision to increase its support to disrupt and discourage human networks that use improvised explosive 

devices to attack United States and coalition military forces in the 

Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Section 1504—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $3.8 billion for Navy 

and Marine Corps procurement. 

Section 1505—Air Force Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $4.5 billion for Air 

Force procurement. 

Section 1506—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $1.4 billion for Defense-wide activities procurement. 

Section 1507—Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide up 

to $205.0 million from the funds authorized in section 1506 of this 

title for Defense-Wide Activities Procurement to the Government of 

the State of Israel for procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket threats. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
447 

Section 1508—National Guard and Reserve Equipment 

This section would authorize $700.0 million for the procurement 

of aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, tactical 

wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, non-system training devices, logistic automation systems, and other critical 

dual-use procurement items for the national guard and reserves as 

part of a specific National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account 

(NGREA). The committee expects national guard and reserve forces 

to use this NGREA funding to procure high-priority equipment that 

would be used by these units in their critical dual-mission role of 

full-spectrum combat operations and domestic civil support missions. 

Section 1509—Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund 

This section would authorize the President’s request of $3.4 billion for the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle fund. 

The committee is aware these vehicles are high priority assets in 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

continue to save lives in combat. 

The committee notes the MRAP family of vehicles consists of legacy MRAP vehicles produced in three different variants based on 

weight, size, and personnel capacity; as well as a new, lighter 

MRAP All Terrain variant (MATV) to be used exclusively in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee notes the extraordinary effort it took to produce over 26,000 MRAP vehicles to include MATVs in just over 3 years and commends the Secretary of 

Defense for acknowledging the importance of this program by making it a top priority. 

The committee expects funding for sustainment of these vehicles 

to begin to transition from overseas contingency operation requests 

to the individual military services base budget requests as part of 

future year budget requests. 

Section 1510—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 

This section would authorize an additional $1.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation. 

Section 1511—Operation and Maintenance 

This section would authorize an additional $113.1 billion for operation and maintenance programs. 

Section 1512—Limitations on Availability of Funds in Afghanistan 

Security Forces Fund 

This section would subject funds authorized in this title for the 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund or any other funds made available to the Department of Defense for the Afghanistan Security 

Forces Fund to the terms and conditions of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

Section 1513—Limitations on Iraq Security Forces Fund 

This section would subject funds authorized in this title for the 

Iraq Security Forces Fund or otherwise made available to the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00475 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
448 

partment of Defense for the Iraq Security Forces Fund for fiscal 

year 2011 to the terms and conditions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). The section would further require that the Government of the Republic of 

Iraq support at least 20 percent of the cost of any item or service 

that is procured for the Iraqi Security Forces with funds from the 

Iraq Security Forces Fund. The provision would provide an exception to the cost-sharing requirement for items and services that are 

either significant military equipment as defined by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794(9)) or are included on the United 

States Munitions List, as defined in section 38(a)(1) of the Arms 

Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (a)(1)). 

Section 1514—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize an additional $15.3 billion for military personnel. 

Section 1515—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize an additional $485.4 million for Defense Working Capital Funds. 

Section 1516—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize an additional $1.4 billion for the 

Defense Health Program. 

Section 1517—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 

Defense-Wide 

This section would authorize an additional $457.1 million for 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide. 

Section 1518—Defense Inspector General 

This section would authorize an additional $10.5 million for the 

Office of the Inspector General. 

Section 1519—Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United States 

Funds for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq 

This section would apply section 1508(a) of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) and prohibit the use of funds contained in this title 

for the acquisition, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of facilities for the use of the Government of the Republic of Iraq, political subdivisions of Iraq, or agencies, departments, or forces of the 

Government of Iraq or its subdivisions. 

Section 1520—Availability of Funds for Rapid Force Protection in 

Afghanistan 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to obligate up 

to $200.0 million in fiscal year 2011 Defense-wide Operation and 

Maintenance funds to address urgent force protection requirements 

facing United States military forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The section would clarify that in carrying out this secVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00476 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
449 

tion, the Secretary of Defense should utilize those rapid acquisition 

authorities available to the Secretary. 

Section 1521—Treatment as Additional Authorizations 

This section would state that amounts authorized to be appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Section 1522—Special Transfer Authority 

This section would authorize the transfer of up to an additional $3.5 billion of war-related funding authorizations in this title 

among the accounts in this title. 

TITLE XVI—IMPROVED SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE IN THE ARMED 

FORCES 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues its ongoing efforts to prevent and resolve sexual assault offenses by or against military members. Congress required the creation of the Defense Task Force on Sexual 

Assault in the Military Services (DTFSAMS) as an extension of the 

Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the 

Military Service Academies in section 576 of the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 

Law 108–375). The committee notes that DTFSAMS was not constituted by the Department of Defense, and therefore did not begin 

its work, until August 2008. 

The committee notes the depth, breadth, thoughtfulness, and 

quality of the DTFSAMS final report. The final report of the task 

force made 30 recommendations to improve sexual assault prevention and response by the Department of Defense in the following 

areas: strategic direction; prevention and training; response to victims; and accountability. 

The committee holds sexual assault in the armed forces to be an 

abhorrent violation of the military culture of trust, respect, and 

selfless service. The committee will continue to be vigilant in its 

oversight of the sexual assault prevention and response programs 

of the Department of Defense. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Improved Coordination Between Military and Civilian Law Enforcement in Response to Sexual Assaults Involving a Service 

Member 

The committee notes the importance of coordination between 

military and civilian law enforcement in response to sexual assaults involving a member of the armed forces. The committee encourages the secretaries of the military departments to ensure that 

military law enforcement agencies under their jurisdiction enter 

into written agreements with local law enforcement authorities to 

provide for: the notification of a military law enforcement agency 

when there is a report of a sexual assault involving a member of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
450 

the armed forces, whether a member of the armed forces is the victim, alleged assailant, or both; and a clear delineation of how each 

agency will respond to reports of such sexual assaults. The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine the feasibility of having a military law enforcement agency prepare a report and conduct an investigation concurrently with any local law 

enforcement authority investigating a sexual assault involving a 

service member. 

Inclusion of Community Organizations 

The committee notes that local communities should play an important role in the sexual assault prevention and response programs of the Department of Defense. The committee encourages 

commanders of military installations, and Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinators assigned to installations, to collaborate with supporting community organizations in the implementation of the sexual assault prevention and response programs. 

Reduced Delays for Convening Courts-Martial Involving Charges of 

Sexual Assault 

The committee encourages the secretaries of the military departments and the Judge Advocate Generals to consider increasing the 

use of military judges from a different armed service to expedite 

the disposition of courts-martial cases involving offenses under section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice). 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1601—Definition of Department of Defense Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Program and Other Definitions 

This section would define the term ‘‘sexual assault prevention 

and response program’’ as referring to Department of Defense policies and programs, including policies and programs of a specific 

military department or armed force, that are intended to effectively 

prevent and respond to sexual assaults involving members of the 

armed forces, whether members of the armed forces are the victim, 

alleged assailant, or both. 

SUBTITLE A—IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROGRAM

Section 1611—Specific Budgeting for Department of Defense 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program 

This section would require that the Secretary of Defense allocate 

a separate line of funding to the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program, effective with the Program 

Objective Memorandum to be issued for fiscal year 2012. 

Section 1612—Consistency in Terminology, Position Descriptions, 

Program Standards, and Organizational Structures 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act, to use consistent termiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00478 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
451 

nology, position descriptions, minimum program standards, and organizational structures throughout the armed forces in implementing the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and 

response program. This section would also require the Secretary to 

take into account operational differences between the military departments when fulfilling the requirements of this section. 

Section 1613—Guidance for Commanders 

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to issue guidance, within one year of the date of enactment 

of this Act, to all military unit commanders that implementation 

of the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program requires their leadership and is their responsibility. 

Section 1614—Commander Consultation With Victims of Sexual 

Assault 

This section would require the commanding officer of a victim to 

offer to meet with the victim of the offense to determine the opinion of the victim regarding case disposition and provide that information to the convening authority before making a decision regarding how to proceed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 

the case of an alleged sexual assault or other offense covered by 

section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice). 

Section 1615—Oversight and Evaluation 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act, to issue standards to be 

used to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the sexual assault 

prevention and response program of each military department in 

preventing and responding to sexual assaults involving members of 

the armed forces, and to develop measures to ensure that the 

armed forces comply with those standards. 

Section 1616—Sexual Assault Reporting Hotline 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 180 

days of the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a universal 

hotline to facilitate the reporting of a sexual assault by a member 

of the armed forces, whether serving in the United States or overseas, who is a victim of a sexual assault. This hotline would also 

be available for use by any other person who is a victim of a sexual 

assault involving a member of the armed forces. This section would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator serving in the locality of the victim 

promptly responds to the reporting of a sexual assault using the 

hotline. 

Section 1617—Review of Application of Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Program to Reserve Components 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the application of the sexual 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
452 

assault prevention and response program for the reserve components. 

Section 1618—Review of Effectiveness of Revised Uniform Code of 

Military Justice Offenses Regarding Rape, Sexual Assault, and 

Other Sexual Misconduct 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of the effectiveness of section 920 of title 10, United States 

Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), as 

amended by section 552 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). This section would also 

require the Secretary to use a panel of military justice experts to 

conduct the review. 

Section 1619—Training and Education Programs for Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Program 

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments, within one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to develop curricula to provide sexual assault prevention and response 

training and education for members of the armed forces under the 

jurisdiction of the secretary and civilian employees of the military 

department to strengthen individual knowledge, skills, and capacity to prevent and respond to sexual assault. The scope of the training would encompass initial entry and accession programs, annual 

refresher training, professional military education, peer education, 

and specialized leadership training, and would be tailored for specific leadership levels and local area requirements. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that sexual 

assault prevention and response training provided to members of 

the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees is 

consistent throughout the military departments, and be included in 

professional military education and first responder training. 

Section 1620—Use of Sexual Assault Forensic Medical Examiners 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within two 

years of the date of enactment of this Act, to provide for the use 

of forensic medical examiners within the Department of Defense 

who are specially trained regarding the collection and preservation 

of evidence in cases involving sexual assault. 

Section 1621—Sexual Assault Advisory Board 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a Sexual Assault Advisory Board, to be modeled after other Department of Defense advisory boards, such as the Defense Business Board, the Defense Policy Board, or the Defense Science Board. 

Section 1622—Department of Defense Sexual Assault Advisory 

Council 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act, to reorganize the Sexual 

Assault Advisory Council and limit membership on the Sexual Assault Advisory Council to Department of Defense personnel. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
453 

Section 1623—Service-Level Sexual Assault Review Boards 

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments, within one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to establish for each military installation or operational command under 

the jurisdiction of the secretary, a multi-disciplinary group to serve 

as a sexual assault review board. A sexual assault review board 

would be, at minimum, responsible for addressing safety issues, developing prevention strategies, analyzing response processes, community impact and overall trends, and identifying training issues. 

These functions would be flexible to accommodate the resources 

available at different installations and operational commands. 

Section 1624—Renewed Emphasis on Acquisition of Centralized 

Department of Defense Sexual Assault Database 

This section would set a new deadline of September 30, 2011, for 

the Secretary of Defense to complete the implementation of the 

centralized sexual assault database required by section 563 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

SUBTITLE B—SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION STRATEGY AND ANNUAL

REPORTING REQUIREMENT

Section 1631—Comprehensive Department of Defense Sexual 

Assault Prevention Strategy 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within one 

year of the date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive strategy to effectively 

prevent sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces, 

whether they are the victim, alleged assailant, or both. In developing the comprehensive strategy, the Secretary of Defense would 

incorporate and build upon the new requirements of this subtitle. 

This section would also require the Secretary, within six months of 

the submission of the comprehensive strategy, to complete its implementation throughout the Department of Defense. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement an evaluation plan for assessing the effectiveness of the comprehensive strategy and its intended outcomes at the Department 

of Defense and individual armed force levels. 

Section 1632—Annual Report on Sexual Assaults Involving Members of the Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program 

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments by January 15, of each year, to submit to the Secretary of 

Defense a report on the sexual assaults involving members of the 

armed forces under the jurisdiction of that secretary during the 

preceding year. The Office of the Judge Advocate General of an 

armed force, or in the case of the Marine Corps the Office of the 

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

would verify the accuracy of the information, including courts-martial data. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, 

within one year of the date of enactment of this Act, to establish 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
454 

a consistent definition of ‘‘founded’’ for purposes of the report and 

require that military criminal investigative organizations only provide synopses for those cases for the preparation of reports under 

this section. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services a report on sexual assaults involving 

members of the armed forces and the sexual assault prevention 

and response program prepared by the military departments, together with the comments of the Secretary of Defense on the report. 

SUBTITLE C—AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 10 

Section 1641—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 

This section would require that the director of the Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office be a general or flag officer or an 

employee of the Department of Defense in a comparable Senior Executive Service position. This section would also specify that the director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office would 

serve as the single point of authority, accountability, and oversight 

for the Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program and provide oversight to ensure that the military 

departments comply with the program. 

Section 1642—Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual 

Assault Victim Advocates 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to standardize the allocation, 

staffing, training, and certification of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish a professional and uniform training and certification program for Sexual 

Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. This section would require the program to be structured and 

administered in a manner similar to the professional training 

available for Equal Opportunity Advisors through the Defense 

Equal Opportunity Management Institute. This section would also 

require that the secretaries of the military departments ensure 

that a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, including a deployable 

Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, has direct access to senior 

commanders and any other commander within the unit or geographical area of responsibility of the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense 

to develop and implement a protocol for the establishment and use 

of sexual assault response teams throughout the Department of Defense. Further, this section would prohibit personnel of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Inspector General of 

the Army, the Naval Inspector General, and the Inspector General 

of the Air Force from performing Sexual Assault Response Coordinator duties. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to work with 

the Office for Crime Victims of the Department of Justice when developing the training and certification of the program for Sexual 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
455 

Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates. The committee also encourages the military departments to 

work towards certifying individuals as Sexual Assault Victim Advocates before they assume duties as a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate, and to keep Congress informed on progress made towards this 

goal. 

Section 1643—Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel and 

Victim Advocate Services 

This section would entitle a member of the armed forces who is 

the victim of a sexual assault to legal assistance provided by a military legal assistance counsel certified as competent to provide such 

duties and assistance provided by a qualified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. This section would also entitle a dependent of a 

member of the armed forces who is the victim of a sexual assault 

and resides on or in the vicinity of a military installation, to the 

extent practicable, legal assistance provided by a military legal assistance counsel certified as competent to provide such duties and 

assistance provided by a qualified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to implement a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator-led process by which 

a member or dependent who is the victim of a sexual assault may 

decline to participate in the investigation of the sexual assault. 

Section 1644—Notification of Command of Outcome of CourtMartial Involving Charges of Sexual Assault 

This section would require the trial counsel, in the case of an alleged sexual assault or other offense covered by section 920 of title 

10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice), to notify the servicing staff judge advocate at the military 

installation, who shall notify the convening authority and commanders, as appropriate. This section would also require the commanding officer, in consultation with the servicing staff judge advocate, to notify members of the command of the outcome of the case. 

Section 1645—Copy of Record of Court-Martial to Victim of Sexual 

Assault Involving a Member of the Armed Forces 

This section would require that in the case of a general or special 

court-martial involving a sexual assault or other offense covered by 

section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), a copy of the prepared record of the 

proceedings of the court-martial be given to the victim of the offence if the victim testified during the proceedings. This section 

would also require that the record of the proceedings be provided 

without charge and as soon as the record is authenticated, and that 

the victim be notified of the opportunity to receive the record of the 

proceedings. 

Section 1646—Medical Care for Victims of Sexual Assault 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

protocols for providing medical care to a member of the armed 

forces who is a victim of a sexual assault, including protocols with 

respect to the appropriate screening, prevention, and mitigation of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
456 

diseases, taking into account the gender of the victim. This section 

would also require the Secretary to ensure that an accurate and 

complete medical record is made for each member of the armed 

forces who is a victim of a sexual assault with respect to the physical and mental condition of the member resulting from the assault, 

and that such record complies with the requirement for confidentiality in making a restricted report under section 1044e(b) of title 

10, United States Code. 

Section 1647—Privilege Against Disclosure of Certain 

Communications With Sexual Assault Victim Advocates 

This section would establish that a confidential communication 

between a victim of a sexual assault and a qualified Sexual Assault 

Victim Advocate be treated in the same manner as a confidential 

communication between a patient and a psychiatrist for proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1661—Recruiter Selection and Oversight 

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to ensure effective recruiter selection and oversight with regard to sexual assault prevention and response. This section would 

also require commanders of recruiting organizations and Military 

Entrance Processing Stations to ensure that sexual assault prevention and response awareness campaign materials are available and 

posted in locations visible to potential and actual recruits for the 

armed forces. 

Section 1662—Availability of Services Under Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program for Dependents of Members, Military Retirees, Department of Defense Civilian Employees, and 

Defense Contractor Employees 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 90 

days of the date of enactment of this Act, to revise materials made 

available under the sexual assault prevention and response program to include information on the extent to which dependents of 

members of the armed forces, retired members, Department of Defense civilian employees, and employees of defense contractors are 

eligible for sexual assault prevention and response services under 

the sexual assault prevention and response program. This section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense, within one year of the 

date of enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility of extending all sexual 

assault prevention and response services available for a member of 

the armed forces who is the victim of a sexual assault to dependents of members of the armed forces, retired members, Department 

of Defense civilian employees, and employees of defense contractors 

who are the victim of a sexual assault. 

Section 1663—Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Program in Training Environments 

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to ensure that a member of the armed forces who is a victim 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
457 

of a sexual assault in a training environment is provided, to the 

maximum extent possible, with confidential access to victim support services and afforded time for recovery. The member should 

not be required to repeat training unless the time needed for support services and recovery significantly interferes with the progress 

of the member’s training. 

Section 1664—Application of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program in Remote Environments and Joint Basing Situations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders to ensure that the sexual assault prevention 

and response program continues to operate even in remote environments in which members of the armed forces are deployed, including coalition operations. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to monitor the implementation of the sexual assault prevention and response program and military justice and jurisdiction issues at joint basing locations. Elements of the armed 

forces sharing a joint base location would be required to closely collaborate on sexual assault prevention and response issues to ensure consistency in approach and messages at the joint base location. 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

PURPOSE 

Division B provides military construction, family housing, and related authorities in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2011. As recommended by the committee, Division B would 

authorize appropriations in the amount of $20,002,370,000 for construction in support of the active forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2011. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING 

OVERVIEW 

The Department of Defense requested $14,209,418,000 for mili- tary construction, $2,714,759,000 for Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,823,191,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 

$14,648,514,000 for military construction, $2,714,759,000 for BRAC 

activities, and $1,823,191,000 for family housing in fiscal year 

2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
458 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here HR491.194
459 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here HR491.195
460 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here HR491.196
461 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here HR491.197
462 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here HR491.198
463 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here HR491.199
464 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here HR491.200
465 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here HR491.201
466 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here HR491.202
467 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here HR491.203
468 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here HR491.204
469 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here HR491.205
470 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here HR491.206
471 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here HR491.207
472 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here HR491.208
473 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here HR491.209
474 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here HR491.210
475 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here HR491.211
476 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here HR491.212
477 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here HR491.213
478 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here HR491.214
479 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here HR491.215
480 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here HR491.216
481 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here HR491.217
482 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here HR491.218
483 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here HR491.219
484 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here HR491.220
485 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here HR491.221
486 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here HR491.222
487 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here HR491.223
488 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here HR491.224
489 

Section 2001—Short Title 

This section would cite Division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.’’ 

Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required 

To Be Specified by Law 

This section would ensure that the authorizations provided in titles XXI through XXVI and title XXIX shall expire on October 1, 

2013, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, whichever is later. 

Section 2003—Effective Date 

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, 

XXV, XXVI, XXVII and XXIX of this Act take effect on October 1, 

2010, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

Section 2004—General Reduction Across Division 

This section would reduce the overall authorization of appropriations in this Division. This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act describing how 

the Secretary determines to implement the reduction. 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $4,078,798,000 for Army military 

construction and $610,469,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2011. The committee recommends authorization of $4,198,174,000 

for military construction and $610,469,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2011. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, Land Disposal 

The committee is aware of an unresolved land disposal issue at 

the former Defense Depot Ogden (DDOU), Utah, which was closed 

in the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Under 

the original disposal agreement, the Army assigned administrative 

jurisdiction of a small parcel of the DDOU to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) in order for HHS to convey the 

property through a Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) to a private 

transportation company to assist disabled citizens in the community. The company has since disbanded, and the property has been 

abandoned for more than two years. The City of Ogden, the recognized Local Reuse Authority, has requested that the title of the 

abandoned property be transferred to the City for further economic 

and reutilization activities since the original plan can no longer be 

executed. However, neither the Army nor HHS believes it has the 

authority to transfer the land, with each claiming the other agency 

must take the first action. The committee believes that the Army 

and HHS have requisite authority under BRAC law to resolve the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
490 

issue and return the property to the beneficial use of the Ogden 

community. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review this matter, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, and brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 31, 2010, concerning the resolution of 

the issue and any legislative assistance the Secretary of the Army 

or the Secretary of HHS believe may be required. 

Fort Bragg Parking Concerns Due to BRAC Force Structure 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is the recipient of several Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 activities including the movement of Army’s Forces Command headquarters (FORSCOM) and 

the Army’s Reserve Command headquarters (USARC) by September 2011. This realignment is expected to increase base loading 

by more than 16,000 personnel, straining the existing transportation grid. The committee is concerned that the installation does 

not have adequate transportation and parking to fully support the 

realignment. The increase in personnel will cause a parking burden 

on facilities such as the FORSCOM/USARC headquarters, Fort 

Bragg’s Soldier Support Center, and Womack Army Medical Center. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 2011, on 

an assessment of the parking requirements that are required to 

support the personnel increase caused by the BRAC realignments. 

At a minimum, this report will include: 

(1) The projected number of military and civilian personnel 

that require parking to support the realigning BRAC activities; 

(2) The current parking available; 

(3) The parking plan to accommodate the increased number 

of personnel caused by the BRAC realignment; and 

(4) Options to address the parking deficiencies that could include parking garages or other public transportation mitigation 

measures. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider 

including the most practical solution into the Future Years Defense 

Program. 

Quarters #1, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois 

The committee is aware of the Department of the Army’s initiative to enter into a lease, pursuant to section 2667 of title 10, 

United States Code, that would reuse this historic structure. The 

committee believes that this 1871 historic structure is integral to 

the integrity of the local community and a key element in the history of Rock Island Arsenal. The committee encourages the Department of the Army to take all prudent steps to ensure Quarters #1, 

Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, is restored and renovated to a state 

that will retain its proud and historic character. 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding 

for several projects contained in the budget request for military 

construction and family housing. These reductions include: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
491 

(1) $30,000,000 for the Aviation Task Force Complex Phase 

1, Increment 2, at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. 

The budget request included $30,000,000 for this project and 

would provide a second increment of phase one to construct a 

standard design Aviation Task Force complex. 

The committee notes that the Department recently reported that 

favorable local bidding in Alaska resulted in the complete award of 

Increment 1 and 2 within the authorization of appropriations provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84), rendering this project moot. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of 

$30,000,000, to support this project. 

(2) $45,000,000 for the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at Wiesbaden, Germany. 

The budget request included $91,000,000 to construct a Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility for consolidated tactical, theater, and national intelligence functions. 

The committee supports the full authorization of this project. 

However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute the project in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the 

funding in fiscal year 2011. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $46,000,000, a reduction 

of $45,000,000, to support this project. 

(3) $12,000,000 for the Operations Support Facility, Increment 4, at Vicenza, Italy. 

The budget request included $25,000,000 to construct the fourth 

increment of an operational support facility required to support a 

brigade complex 

The committee supports the full authorization of this project. 

However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute the project in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the 

funding in fiscal year 2011. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $13,000,000, a reduction 

of $12,000,000, to support this project. 

(4) $12,000,000 for Barracks and Community Support, Increment 4, at Vicenza, Italy. 

The budget request included $26,000,000 to construct the fourth 

increment of an operational support facility required to support a 

brigade complex 

The committee supports the full authorization of this project. 

However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute the project in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the 

funding in fiscal year 2011. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $13,000,000, a reduction 

of $13,000,000, to support this project. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
492 

Planning and Design, Army 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $347,000—Easton Readiness Center Addition/Alteration, 

BG Louis G. Smith Readiness Center, Maryland; 

(2) $3,060,000—Growth Support Infrastructure, Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia; 

(3) $2,070,000—Rail Yard Improvements, Fort Bliss, Texas; 

and 

(4) $1,166,000—Alternative Energy Projects, Fort Bliss, 

Texas. 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army complete unspecified minor construction activities for the following 

projects: 

(1) $1,700,000—Emergency Medical Services Facility, Fort 

Rucker, Alabama; and 

(2) $1,750,000—Mapes Road and Cooper Avenue Improvements, Fort Meade, Maryland. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Army construction projects authorized for 

fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The list contained in 

this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on the amount the Army may obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2102—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2011. 

This section would further provide the authorization of appropriations to support Army family housing. 

Section 2103—Use of Unobligated Army Military Construction 

Funds in Conjunction With Funds Provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Project 

This section would provide the Secretary of the Army authority 

to use unobligated funds, in conjunction with funds provided by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, to construct a two-company fire station 

at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
493 

Section 2104—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2009 Project 

This section would change the location of a construction project 

for an Aircraft/Vehicle Maintenance Shop from Katterbach, Federal 

Republic of Germany, to Grafenwoehr, Germany. 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2010 Project 

This section would expand the scope of a construction project for 

a Brigade Complex at Fort Riley, Kansas. 

Section 2106—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2008 Projects 

This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 

1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $3,879,104,000 for Navy military 

construction and $552,790,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2011. The committee recommends authorization of $3,941,639,000 

for military construction and $552,790,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2011. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Defense Access Road Assessment To Support Naval Support 

Activity, Northwest Annex, Virginia 

The committee is concerned that the main access road to Naval 

Support Activity Northwest Annex, Chesapeake, Virginia, is insufficient to support the current mission requirements of the installation. Even though the installation has sufficient space to support 

future additional command tenants, the inadequate load and volume capacity of the main access road may preclude the Naval Support Activity Northwest Annex, Virginia, from supporting future 

missions. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution 

Command, to consider actions necessary to designate Ballahack 

Road from United States Route 17 to Route 168 as a Defense Access Road in the most condensed timeframe possible. 

Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range 

The committee notes that the San Diego Shotgun Sports Association (SDSSA) has operated a trap and skeet range on Marine Corps 

Air Station Miramar since 1957, providing free recreational shooting for active-duty military personnel and their families for more 

than 50 years and strengthening the bond between the residents 

of the community and the United States Marine Corps. The committee understands that the Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/SI) conducted to assess possible lead contamination 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
494 

beyond the range boundaries is now complete and recommends a 

Remedial Investigation (RI) be conducted to better evaluate the full 

range of possible contamination. While the committee expects the 

Secretary of the Navy to plan and budget for necessary mitigation 

and environment cleanup measures as required by law, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to seek creative solutions to continue even limited range operations during the conduct 

of the RI and any further required activities and directs the Secretary to brief the results of the review to the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 

by December 31, 2010. Further, the committee urges the Secretary 

to explore fiscally prudent measures by which the SDSSA and the 

Marine Corps may partner in an effective range management plan 

that prevents any future off-range contamination and permits full 

operations in the future. 

Planning and Design, Navy 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $550,000—Submarine Group Two Headquarters, Navy 

Submarine Base New London, Connecticut; and 

(2) $760,000—Platform Protection Engineering Complex, 

Navy Surface Warfare Center Crane, Indiana. 

Silver Strand Training Complex, California 

The committee is aware of the Navy’s proposal for increased 

training activities within the Navy’s Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) and southern areas of the Naval Air Station North Island. While the committee understands the importance of SSTC to 

west coast naval amphibious, special warfare, and mine countermeasure activities, the committee is concerned about the impact 

additional training will have on the quality of life for residents of 

the City of Imperial Beach and the City of Coronado. The committee strongly urges the Navy to actively work with the City of 

Imperial Beach and the City of Coronado to mitigate increases in 

noise, including helicopter noise at Naval Outlying Field Imperial 

Beach, and environmental disturbances resulting from the proposed increase in training. The committee also urges the Navy to 

communicate in advance whenever practicable the potential impact 

of these activities to nearby communities. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Navy construction projects authorized for 

fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The list contained in 

this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on the amount the Navy may obligate on military construction projects. Finally, this section would restrict the 

expenditures of planning and design appropriations to support the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
495 

establishment of a homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier 

at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. 

Section 2202—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2011. 

This section would further provide the authorization of appropriations to support Navy family housing. 

Section 2203—Technical Amendment To Reflect Multi-Increment 

Fiscal Year 2010 Project 

This section would add an explicit authorization for the incremented construction project listed. 

Section 2204—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 

2008 Project 

This section would extend the authorization listed until October 

1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,311,385,000 for Air Force military construction and $591,817,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 

$1,315,773,000 for military construction and $591,817,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2011. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding 

for several projects contained in the budget request for military 

construction and family housing. These reductions include: 

(1) $79,000,000 for the Air Force Technical Applications Center at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. 

The budget request included $158,009,000 to construct a multiple 

story facility for unique equipment needed to support critical missions. 

The committee supports the full authorization of this project. 

However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute the project in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the 

funding in fiscal year 2011. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $79,009,000, a reduction 

of $79,000,000, to support this project. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
496 

F–22 Raptor Basing 

The committee understands that the Secretary of the Air Force 

is contemplating basing options to support the F–22 Raptor mission. Since the Air Force is procuring fewer aircraft than initially 

programmed, the committee supports the basing consolidation 

under way and encourages the Secretary to promptly replace aviation assets that have already been reduced at affected installations 

with aviation assets of a similar mission. In the determination of 

consolidation options, the Secretary should consider completing a 

cost benefit analysis that appropriately maximizes full use of available capacity at existing F–22 installations. The Secretary is urged 

to complete this assessment expeditiously and brief the assessment 

to the congressional defense committees. 

Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah 

The committee understands that the Secretary of the Air Force 

initially decided to separate the Single Program Manager and the 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Prime Integration Function and 

locate a significant effort associated with these entities in leased 

space in the local community. This schism in operations has endured for over ten years and is the cause for heightened costs, lost 

productivity, and an increase vulnerability associated with the 

leasing location. The committee is concerned that the Secretary of 

the Air Force has not performed a sufficient review of the life cycle 

costs associated with this enduring, critical effort. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate 

the life cycle costs with the current effort and program sufficient 

funds to implement the least cost solution that could include traditional military construction or an Enhanced Use Lease option. 

Planning and Design, Air Force 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete 

planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $378,000—AEDC Power Distribution Modernization, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee; 

(2) $495,000—Central Deployment Center, Grand Forks Air 

Force Base, North Dakota; 

(3) $900,000—Consolidated Security Forces Operations Center, Phase 1, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; 

(4) $249,000—Infrastructure Improvements, MacDill Air 

Force Base, Florida; 

(5) $396,000—New Fitness Facility, Phase 1, Scott Air Force 

Base, Illinois; 

(6) $387,000—BCE Maintenance Shops and Supply Warehouse, Travis Air Force Base, California; and 

(7) $810,000—Air Traffic Control Tower, Maxwell Air Force 

Base, Alabama. 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Air Force 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Air Force 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
497 

complete unspecified minor construction activities for the following 

project: 

(1) $3,000,000—Land Acquisition Clear Zone, Langley Air 

Force Base, Virginia. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Air Force construction projects authorized 

for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The list contained 

in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2302—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 

2011. This section would further provide the authorization of appropriations to support Air Force family housing. 

Section 2303—Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 

2007 Project 

This section would extend the authorization listed until October 

1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $3,118,062,000 for defense agency 

military construction and $68,075,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 

$2,999,580,000 for military construction and $68,075,000 for family 

housing for fiscal year 2011. 

The budget request also contained $124,971,000 for chemical demilitarization construction. The committee recommends authorization of $124,971,000 for chemical demilitarization construction for 

fiscal year 2011. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding 

for several projects contained in the budget request for military 

construction and family housing. These reductions include: 

(1) $150,000,000 for a general reduction in the Defense-Wide 

military construction account to correctly increment construction projects. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
498 

The committee supports the full authorizations of these projects. 

However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the defense agencies 

to execute the projects in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For these projects, the committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the 

funding in fiscal year 2011. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $150,000,000, across the defense-wide military construction account, to increment projects properly. 

Planning and Design, Defense-Wide 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for planning and design, the Secretary of Defense complete planning and design activities for the following project: (1) $1,036,000—Fuel Storage Complex, Tulsa International 

Airport, Oklahoma. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEFENSE AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the defense agencies construction projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The list 

contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the 

specific projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each 

project and provide an overall limit on the amount the defense 

agencies may obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2402—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction, planning and design, and credits to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund for defense agencies family housing for fiscal year 

2011. This section would further provide the authorization of appropriations to support defense agencies family housing. 

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects and require that the Secretary of 

Defense reserve a portion of the amount for energy conservation 

projects for reserve components. 

SUBTITLE B—CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2411—Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 

Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 2011 for chemical demilitarization construction. This section would also provide 

an overall limit on the amount the chemical demilitarization office 

may spend on military construction projects. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
499 

Section 2412—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2000 Project 

This section would expand the scope of the authorization listed 

to continue chemical demilitarization construction at Blue Grass 

Army Depot, Kentucky. 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $258,884,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for 

fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends authorization of 

$258,884,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2011. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 

Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount 

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act and the amount 

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously 

financed by the United States. 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO 

This section would authorize $258,884,000 as the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 

Program. 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,438,214,000 for military construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for fiscal year 

2011. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2011 

of $1,809,493,000 to be distributed as follows: 

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $1,019,902,000 

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 292,371,000 

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 358,331,000 

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 91,557,000 

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 47,332,000 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station 

The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 decisions directed the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve wings at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, in completing an association of the 

two wings, to jointly operate C–130 tactical airlift assets assigned 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
500 

to the air reserve station. However, the air reserve station needs 

to expand existing C–130 capabilities to support this integration. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force Reserve to include the second phase of the C–130 flightline operations facility in 

the next Future Years Defense Plan. 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete 

planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $675,000—Multipurpose ANG Training Facility, Fort 

Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; 

(2) $3,600,000—Aircraft Maintenance Shops, Joe Foss Field, 

South Dakota; 

(3) $2,000,000—ASA Replace Alert Complex, Naval Air Station JRB New Orleans, Louisiana; and 

(4) $534,000—Contingency Response Group Facility, 

Standiford Field, Kentucky. 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning and design activities for the following projects: 

(1) $223,000—Fire Fighting Team Support Facility, Murphy, 

North Carolina; 

(2) $281,000—Joint Forces Headquarters, Phase 1, Boone, 

Kentucky; 

(3) $446,000—Troops Service Support Center, Fort Custer, 

Michigan; 

(4) $671,000—Readiness Center, Hermitage, Pennsylvania; 

(5) $778,000—Readiness Center, Barrigada, Guam; 

(6) $800,000—Regional Training Institute Phase 1, Camp 

Dodge, Iowa; 

(7) $947,000—Field Maintenance Shop, Mankato, Minnesota; 

(8) $1,243,000—Armed Forces Reserve Center Addition/Alteration, Salem, Oregon; 

(9) $1,484,000—Barracks (AT) Phase 1, Camp Butner, North 

Carolina; 

(10) $1,508,000—Field Maintenance Shop, Williamsport, 

Pennsylvania; 

(11) $1,513,000—Armed Forces Reserve Center, Tobyhanna, 

Pennsylvania; 

(12) $2,000,000—FWAATS Expansion, Bridgeport, West Virginia; 

(13) $2,334,000—Regional Training Institute Phase 2, Camp 

Robinson, Arkansas; 

(14) $3,729,000—Readiness Center, Quonset Point, Rhode Island; 

(15) $5,000,000—Operational Reserve Headquarters, 

McLennan County, Texas; and 

(16) $5,000,000—Cantonment and Support Infrastructure, 

South Texas Training Center, Texas. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
501 

Stratton Air National Guard Base 

The 109th Airlift Wing, located at the Stratton Air National 

Guard Base, New York, provides direct support to the Air Expeditionary Forces and provides aviation support to the National 

Science Foundation to execute a Presidential Directive mandating 

a U.S. National Polar mission presence. New York State’s Civil 

Support Team is also located at the Stratton Air National Guard 

Base. 

Given the unique missions of these units, the construction of a 

new Joint Warehousing facility at Stratton is essential to future 

operations at the base to ensure these units can store and catalogue their unique mission equipment. The committee encourages 

the Air Force Reserve to include the Stratton Air National Guard 

Base Warehouse and Logistics Center in the next Future Years Defense Program. 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Air National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Air Force 

complete unspecified minor construction activities for the following 

project: 

(1) $2,000,000—Relocate Main Gate, Moffett Field, California. 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within the authorized amounts 

for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army complete unspecified minor construction activities for the following 

projects: 

(1) $891,000—Paving, Sacramento Depot, California; 

(2) $1,466,000—Renewable Photovoltaic Solar Power, Ventura, California; 

(3) $1,500,000—Emergency Power Generator, Glen Jean, 

West Virginia; 

(4) $1,999,000—Simulation Center, Iowa City Melrose, Iowa; 

(5) $2,000,000—FWAATS Apron Expansion, Bridgeport, Connecticut; and 

(6) $2,000,000—Unit Training Equipment Site Addition/Alteration, Ravenna TS, Ohio. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Army National Guard construction projects 

authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The 

list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the 

specific projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each 

project and provide an overall limit on the amount the Army National Guard may obligate on military construction projects. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
502 

Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Army Reserve construction projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the Army Reserve may 

obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

Construction and Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of 

Appropriations 

This section lists the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 

construction projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a projectby-project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to be 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project and provide an overall limit on the 

amount the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve may obligate 

on military construction projects. 

Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Air National Guard construction projects 

authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The 

list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the 

specific projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each 

project and provide an overall limit on the amount the Air National 

Guard may obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section lists the Air Force Reserve construction projects authorized for fiscal year 2011 on a project-by-project basis. The list 

contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the 

specific projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section would provide the authorization of appropriations for each 

project and provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force 

Reserve may obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2606—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2008 Projects 

This section would extend the authorizations listed until October 

1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
503 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $360,474,000 for activities related 

to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities and 

$2,354,285,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The committee 

recommends authorization of $360,474,000 for prior BRAC round 

activities and $2,354,285,000 for BRAC 2005 activities. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Defense Access Roads Assessment 

The committee remains concerned that the Defense Access Roads 

(DAR) Program criteria place a disproportionate burden on local 

communities to manage the impact of military installation-generated traffic volume. While this problem has been exacerbated in 

a number of locations as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 activities, BRAC is by no means the only defense-related cause of rising traffic congestion around military installations. 

Even so, the committee remains particularly concerned that the 

Secretary of Defense has aggravated traffic congestions at multiple 

transportation nodes as a result of implementing the BRAC requirements. The traffic criteria promulgated by the DAR program 

do not appear to appropriately address pre-existing urban traffic 

congestion. To address these concerns, the committee is pleased to 

note that the Secretary of Defense has commissioned the National 

Academy of Sciences to review ‘‘Federal Funding of Transportation 

Improvements in BRAC Cases.’’ 

While the committee applauds this effort, it also believes that 

current DAR program criteria often fail to consider existing and escalating traffic congestion at installations unaffected by BRAC. The 

committee believes that the impact of Department of Defense activities on local traffic infrastructure is too often ignored, causing 

unnecessary friction with cash-strapped state and local governments. In addition, unmitigated traffic congestion degrades the 

mission capability of an installation if the workforce cannot readily 

access the base. 

To better assess this program, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide copies of the National Academy of 

Sciences assessment of this program to the congressional defense 

committees within 15 days of its final publication by the National 

Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees on the Department’s assessment of the National Academy of Sciences report within 45 days of final publication that 

identifies corrective actions to implement the proposed changes for 

BRAC-impacted installations and other enduring locations. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
504 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 

This section would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 

for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decision 

of prior Base Realignment and Closure activities. 

Section 2702—Authorized Base Realignment and Closure Activities 

Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 

2005 

This section would authorize military construction projects for 

fiscal year 2011 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions to support Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) 2005 activities. 

Section 2703—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal year 2011 that are required to implement the decisions of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

2005 activities. This provision would also provide an overall limit 

of the amount authorized for BRAC military construction projects. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2711—Transportation Plan for BRAC 133 Project Under 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia, BRAC Initiative 

This section would limit the acceptance of not more than 1,000 

parking spaces at a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Project 

at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, also known as the ‘‘Mark Center,’’ until 

the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense 

committees a viable transportation management plan and certifies 

that construction has been completed to provide adequate ingress 

and egress from the business park at which the BRAC project is 

located. This section would also require the Department of Defense 

Inspector General to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees, by September 30, 2011, assessing the sufficiency of the 

Secretary of the Army’s transportation management plan. 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques To 

Achieve Life-Cycle Cost Effective Facilities 

The committee remains concerned that the varying construction 

methods, authorized by the Department of Defense, may not obtain 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
505 

the most life cycle cost effective facilities as defined by section 2801 

of title 10, United States Code. This issue was highlighted by a recent Government Accountability Office study entitled ‘‘DoD Needs 

to Determine and Use the Most Economical Building Materials and 

Methods When Acquiring New Permanent Facilities’’ dated April 

2010. Therefore, the committee directs the Defense Science Board 

to conduct an independent assessment of construction techniques 

that provide life cycle cost effective facilities used by the Department of Defense to include the following: 

(1) An evaluation of the current construction techniques used 

by the Department of Defense to achieve life cycle cost effective 

facilities; 

(2) A comparison of Department of Defense and industry construction methods; 

(3) An assessment of the effectiveness of contract provisions 

to obtain life cycle cost effective facilities; 

(4) An assessment of the effectiveness of the Department of 

Defense to obtain the life cycle cost effective assessment established pursuant to section 2801 of title 10, United States Code; 

(5) A recommendation of the most effective life cycle period, 

by facility type, that the Department of Defense should use to 

obtain the most cost effective facilities; and 

(6) Such other related matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees, by March 1, 2011, a report on 

the results of the assessment, including such comments and recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Carbon Fiber Grid Precast Concrete 

The committee supports, where practical, the use of innovative 

building systems to accomplish the Department of Defense’s construction objectives. The committee, for example, is aware of the 

widespread commercial use of carbon fiber grid reinforced precast 

concrete, a relatively recent but proven innovation in concrete. This 

technology uses steel for primary reinforcing and a carbon fiber 

grid for secondary reinforcing and shear transfer, thereby resulting 

in thinner, lighter, more durable, thermally efficient, and cost effective concrete. The committee notes that this building application 

has been inserted in several military construction projects and has 

yielded positive results. The committee also notes that the Tri 

Service Engineering Executive Board is considering a change to the 

concrete guide specification to incorporate this innovation. 

If the Secretary of Defense determines that this construction 

methodology is in the best interest of national defense, the committee encourages the rapid promulgation of this technology into 

future construction contract solicitations. 

Collaborative Efforts To Address Installation Encroachment 

The committee remains concerned about the negative impacts on 

military training and operations resulting from encroachment 

around the nation’s military installations. The 2009 National Academy of Public Administration report, ‘‘Strengthening National Defense: Countering Encroachment through Military-Community ColVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00533 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
506 

laboration’’ noted that ‘‘. . . despite efforts by the DOD, the challenges to military readiness created by nearby civilian communities 

are significant and growing. Among [the panel’s recommendations] 

is the recommendation for increased collaboration among key 

stakeholders—local and state governments, non-profit organizations, the Military Services and installations, and other federal 

agencies, in order to creatively and effectively address these complex and critical issues.’’ 

The committee supports this recommendation, and notes that 

such a collaborative effort continues to address encroachment 

around Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia, a base that was 

once considered the ‘‘poster child’’ for military base encroachment. 

In recognition of the dangers to military readiness posed by encroachment, the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, Virginia, 

and the Commonwealth of Virginia have taken a number of steps 

to reduce encroachment around NAS Oceana. For example, the 

communities have implemented modifications to land zoning ordinances to comply with compatible use guidelines, including rezoning approximately one-third of City of Virginia Beach property, 

purchased parcels of property to prevent future incompatible development, and the Commonwealth of Virginia and communities continue to annually commit $15.0 million for land acquisitions to reduce encroachment. 

In a collaborative effort, the Department of the Navy has 

partnered with these communities by utilizing Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative funds to purchase conservation 

easements on properties acquired by the communities, allowing for 

additional community efforts to reduce encroachment or prevent 

encroachment in areas of concern to NAS Oceana. The committee 

applauds such collaborative efforts, and encourages the secretaries 

of the military departments to explore similar partnering initiatives at installations around the nation. 

Department of Defense Policy Regarding Installation Energy 

Management 

The committee is concerned that a Department of Defense instruction regarding installation energy management, issued December 11, 2009, suggests that it is departmental policy to satisfy 

some, but not all, goals established by law. Specifically, pursuant 

to this instruction, it is departmental policy to comply with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) 

and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–58) but not the 

goal set forth by section 2852 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). The 

committee expects the Secretary of Defense to issue implementing 

guidance and ensure that departmental policy is consistent with 

this law. The committee includes a provision elsewhere in this title 

that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan and 

implementation guidelines for achieving this goal. 

Disposal Plans for Excess and Obsolete Facilities 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s goal is to 

maintain only those facilities that are essential to its needs and to 

eliminate unneeded facility inventories in order to minimize 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
507 

sustainment, restoration, modernization, and operating costs. To 

help achieve this goal, the committee also notes that the Department conducted a survey in 2004 to identify unneeded facilities and 

developed plans to dispose of these facilities by fiscal year 2013. 

The committee recognizes that eliminating excess and obsolete 

facility inventories can reduce costs. The committee also recognizes, 

however, that funding and implementing facility disposal plans can 

be a challenge, in view of competing facility funding needs. Nonetheless, the committee encourages the Department to continue to 

identify and dispose of excess and obsolete facilities. The committee 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees, by March 30, 2011, 

that reviews the Department’s plans for eliminating excess and obsolete facilities. At a minimum, the review should assess the following: what amount of excess and obsolete facility inventory currently exists and what is the related impact on annual operation 

and maintenance and other costs; what is the status of the Department’s plans for disposing of excess and obsolete facilities, including the amounts of past and planned disposal funding; what impediments exist, if any, to fully implement the Department’s plans; 

and any other issues the Comptroller General finds relevant to this 

review. 

East Coast Homeport Cost Assessment 

The committee is concerned that the full costs associated with 

the planned second East coast homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier has been underestimated, introducing a measure of 

budgetary risk and potential shortfalls in future year’s defense 

budget submissions. The committee directs that, not later than 

February 15, 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing 

an independent estimate of the total direct and indirect costs to be 

incurred by the Federal Government in homeporting a nuclear carrier at Mayport, Florida. 

Enhanced Use Leases 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 

begun to address challenges associated with a large inventory of 

deteriorating facilities and excess and underutilized property by 

pursuing a multi-part strategy that includes Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC), housing privatization, and demolition of facilities 

that are no longer needed. The committee is also aware that the 

Department has used authority provided under section 2667 of title 

10, United States Code, to pursue a program of leasing real property not currently needed for mission requirements to gain additional resources for the maintenance and repair of existing facilities 

or the construction of new facilities. 

The committee believes that leasing of underutilized real property, particularly the use of longer-term leases that are referred to 

as ‘‘enhanced use leases,’’ offers opportunities to reduce infrastructure and base operating costs. However, the committee has concerns about the program, including potential impediments that 

exist which could adversely affect the Department’s implementation of enhanced use leases, such as the complexities of some lease 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
508 

transactions. The committee is also concerned about whether the 

Department has received fair market value in its enhanced use 

leases and how potential future BRAC rounds might affect lease 

agreements and potential liability due to lease termination prior to 

lease expiration. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, by March 30, 2011, to review the Department of Defense’s 

implementation of enhanced use leases, as provided for under the 

authority of section 2667 of title 10, United States Code. At a minimum, the review should assess the following: 

(1) To what extent the Department has used the authorities 

in section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to implement 

enhanced use leases; 

(2) How the Department has dealt with the impediments to 

the use of enhanced use leases, including potential liability due 

to lease termination prior to lease expiration; 

(3) How the Department determines the fair market value of 

the enhanced use lease interest; 

(4) To what extent the Department has realized the expected 

benefits from implemented leases; 

(5) The Department’s determination to enter into a lease 

rather than making a surplus determination; and 

(6) The Department’s determination that the proposed leases 

are compatible with the mission of the installations. 

Ensuring Realistic Air-to-Air Training for Fifth-Generation Aircraft 

Units 

The committee is aware that fifth-generation fighter aircraft 

squadrons face unique challenges in developing, scheduling, and 

engaging in realistic air-to-air combat training activities. Such 

challenges are particularly acute when low-observable aircraft with 

exceptional avionics systems are only able to conduct air-to-air 

training with identical aircraft. In order to conduct realistic training in such cases, some of the aircraft must artificially limit their 

capabilities in order to simulate third- or fourth-generation aircraft, employ inter-flight data link systems to simulate use of aircraft sensors, or leave pilots in unrealistic ‘‘stealth-on-stealth’’ engagements. This results in inefficient training for fifth-generation 

aircraft pilots, erosion of skills in effective operational use of aircraft sensors, radars, and other equipment, and unnecessary ‘‘wear 

and tear’’ on the nation’s premier fighter aircraft fleet in training 

scenarios in which older aircraft would perform more effectively. 

Although these issues are primarily experienced today by F–22 

Raptor units, the committee expects units equipped with the F–35 

Lightning II aircraft in the future to face similar challenges. As 

such, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to review 

air-to-air training practices of existing fifth-generation aircraft 

units and to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed 

Services by January 15, 2011, on options for basing aggressor aircraft at fifth-generation aircraft bases. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
509 

Future Unmanned Aerial Systems Training, Operations, and 

Sustainability 

The Department of Defense continues to rapidly increase its investment in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to meet battlefield 

commanders’ demand for the capabilities provided by UAS. For example, the Department’s recent budget requests have sought funds 

to continue to increase the Air Force Predator and Reaper UAS 

programs to 50 combat air patrols by fiscal year 2011, an increase 

of nearly 300 percent from fiscal year 2007. Moreover, the Department’s February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review report states 

that the Air Force will continue to increase the number of combat 

air patrols to 65 by fiscal year 2015. 

The rapid growth of UAS inventories to meet operational demands raises a number of questions concerning the military services’ ability to support these inventories in the near- and long-term. 

In particular, to support their UAS inventories, the military services must train sufficient numbers of personnel to operate and 

maintain the aircraft, provide adequate facilities and other infrastructure to sustain them, and provide sufficient access to airspace 

and training ranges to train military personnel within the United 

States and at military bases overseas. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees with its fiscal year 

2012 budget request that describes the military services’ plans to 

support their current and planned UAS inventories. The report 

should, at a minimum, discuss: 

(1) Current UAS inventory levels and planned UAS inventory levels for each fiscal year through 2017; 

(2) Plans to supply the number of personnel needed to operate the aircraft and sensor payloads and to perform UAS maintenance; 

(3) Current and planned UAS basing and other operating locations; 

(4) Progress made in providing the number of facilities needed for UAS inventories to support operations and training and 

the funding required for any additional facilities; and 

(5) The availability of airspace, ranges, and other infrastructure at each planned UAS location, and a description of the 

steps that the services plan to take to overcome any limitations 

that adversely impact UAS training. 

Guam Civilian Infrastructure Requirements To Support and Sustain Realignment of Military Installations and the Relocation of 

Military Personnel on Guam 

The committee notes the lack of a comprehensive report on the 

local civilian infrastructure funding needs from Guam. The committee, further notes that in a Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report on civilian infrastructure needs on Guam, GAO–09– 

653, they highlighted the following, ‘‘Although DOD has taken a 

number of actions to identify its requirements and potential solutions for meeting this significant demand, it has not begun development of a comprehensive utilities plan to use as an important planning tool in managing and informing stakeholders, including Congress, on the several challenges that pose considerable risk to the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
510 

success of building up the infrastructure to meet the demand and 

ensure utilities are available when needed. Without sufficient utility services, major construction projects, movement of Marines and 

other forces, and other buildup activities may fall behind schedule 

and increase implementation costs due to further compression of 

the timeline near the end of the implementation period.’’ In particular, the call for a comprehensive plan and report from the Department of Defense has not been completed. 

Furthermore, the committee notes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their formal comments and submission on 

the draft environmental impact statement gave the Department of 

Defense the lowest scoring possible for an environmental impact 

statement. In part, the lowest score from the EPA was a result of 

the lack of comprehensive planning by the Department of Defense 

on how it would fix critical infrastructure gaps on Guam. The committee remains concerned that without a comprehensive civilian infrastructure plan that the military build-up on Guam will be greatly inhibited and cause significant cost overruns. As such, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to work with the 

U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs and with the 

Government of Guam on the preparation of a comprehensive effort 

to coordinate local civilian infrastructure requirements associated 

with the military expansion on Guam. 

Naval Air Station North Island Transportation Improvements 

The committee is aware of the Secretary of the Navy’s efforts to 

collaborate with the City of Coronado, California, and other state 

and regional partners including the California Department of 

Transportation on addressing congestion in the city related to 

Naval Air Station North Island, California. The committee strongly 

encourages the Navy to continue working with the city and regional partners to expeditiously find and implement short-and 

long-term solutions to the current traffic problem, as well as likely 

increased congestion with the loading of an additional aircraft carrier. 

Naval Station Mayport, Florida, Homeporting Alternatives 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than December 15, 

2010, on the implementation and recurring costs of homeporting alternatives including the following homeporting options at Naval 

Station Mayport: 

(1) Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; 

(2) Littoral Combat Ships; 

(3) Non-nuclear options considered in the ‘‘Environmental 

Impact Statement for Homeporting of Additional Surface Ships 

at Naval Station Mayport’’ signed January 14, 2009; and 

(4) Other options that the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Such a review shall include an assessment of one-time and recurring operation and maintenance requirements and military construction requirements associated with the various alternatives. 

This report shall review the benefits to the northeast Florida ship 

maintenance industrial base that could result from the homeporting of non-nuclear vessels at the installation. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
511 

The committee notes that the estimates for the costs of homeporting a nuclear aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport continue to rise, and may cost as much as $1 billion in military construction and recurring operation and maintenance costs. 

The committee believes that a better assessment of these cost estimates of the various alternatives is warranted. The committee 

also believes that a complement of non-nuclear-powered surface 

combatants could be more compatible with the existing support 

structure at Naval Station Mayport and less expensive than duplicating a nuclear maintenance capability that already exists on the 

East Coast. The committee also notes that the northeast Florida 

ship maintenance industrial base could be enhanced if the Department of the Navy were to base non-nuclear-powered ships at Naval 

Station Mayport. Naval Station Mayport already has the pier infrastructure necessary to homeport non-nuclear-powered surface combatant ships, and the maintenance requirements of these alternative homeporting solutions appear to be more closely matched to 

the expertise of the existing local ship repair industrial base. 

Finally, the committee understands that a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeported at Naval Station Mayport could undergo 

at the installation only two of the four types of scheduled carrier 

maintenance availabilities: the Carrier Incremental Availability 

and the Planned Incremental Availability. These activities would 

likely provide the local private shipyards with combined yearly revenues of only approximately $20 million. Furthermore, the Navy 

has indicated that the remaining two types of scheduled nuclear 

maintenance availabilities can be conducted only in the Norfolk 

area, requiring a temporary shift in homeport to Norfolk to complete these availabilities. The committee believes that such a temporary shift in homeport could present an additional requirement 

on carrier crews and their families that could be avoided if Naval 

Station Mayport were resourced with non-nuclear-powered ships. 

Report on Workforce Housing and Medical Needs of Guest Workers 

on Guam 

The committee remains concerned about the lack of a detailed 

plan by the Department of Defense regarding the requirements and 

planning for the housing of a transient and guest worker labor 

force on the Territory of Guam during the planned military buildup. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) has determined that the primary acquisition strategy for major construction 

will be done via Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC). 

To date, NAVFAC has requested that potential construction contract bidders provide a strategy for the housing of a transient and 

guest worker population, as well as for how the contractor would 

provide medical care to this population. The committee is concerned that this approach could lead to poor workforce housing conditions and sub-optimized medical care. The committee believes 

that a more comprehensive strategy from the Department of Defense is necessary to direct contractors as to appropriate workforce 

housing and medical care on Guam during the major construction 

phases. 

The committee notes the development of workforce housing options for the transient and guest workforce but encourages the Department to meet certain benchmarks and requirements, such as 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
512 

reducing the impact on the surrounding community, as well as reducing potential traffic congestion by locating worker housing near 

major construction sites. The committee would also note that preferences should be given to firms that meet these requirements. 

Additionally, the committee notes that individual construction 

firms are required to provide details on how they will provide medical care and insurance to the transient and guest worker population on Guam during the major construction phases. Further, the 

Joint Guam Program Office has indicated that most medical care 

would have to be provided by the individual contractor, but severe 

injuries would be handled at the Guam Naval Hospital and the Department of Defense would encourage contractors to purchase 

health insurance from local firms on Guam. The committee recognizes that the purchase of healthcare insurance relies on the available healthcare infrastructure. Unfortunately, the health infrastructure on Guam is deficient. The committee believes the Navy 

plan has serious flaws and could potentially overburden the local 

medical system and reduce access to care at the Guam Naval Hospital for veterans and military retirees. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 

2010, on methods the Secretary will use to ensure common standards for workforce housing and medical care. The report, at a minimum, must: 

(1) Outline the standards and requirements that the Secretary will require all providers of workforce housing to meet; 

(2) Outline selection criteria being used that will ensure contractors locate workforce housing in areas near major construction sites and that are consistent with the Guam 2030 Transportation Plan; 

(3) Discuss how the Secretary will incorporate the minimum 

requirements for workforce housing into the MACC for construction firms; 

(4) Detail the strategy and responsible parties for ensuring 

compliance with workforce housing standards; 

(5) Detail the requirements for medical care and insurance 

for the transient and guest worker population on Guam; 

(6) Outline the organic, attached healthcare assets and capabilities the Secretary requires industry to provide; 

(7) Detail how industry will coordinate those assets with 

resident Guam healthcare to minimize the impact on Guam’s 

citizens and business environment; 

(8) Detail how the Secretary will incorporate the minimum 

requirements for medical care of the transient and guest worker population into the MACC for construction firms; and 

(9) Detail the strategy and responsible parties for ensuring 

compliance with medical care and insurance standards. 

Sensors Center of Excellence—Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio 

The committee supports the Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) 2005 decision that established a Sensors Center of Excellence at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base through the consolidation 

of various radars and sensor development. The committee understands that the Department of Defense is reviewing the developVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00540 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
513 

ment and detection of unmanned aircraft systems and integration 

of these systems into the national airspace system. In order to advance the functionality of unmanned aircraft systems, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees, within 180 days of enactment of this 

Act, on efforts to examine opportunities to utilize the Sensors Center of Excellence at Wright-Patterson AFB, particularly in regard 

to supporting the development of detect, sense and avoid capability 

for unmanned aircraft systems. In conducting the study, the Secretary is encouraged to consult with other federal entities that may 

also be able to benefit from enhancing the capabilities and resources at the Sensors Center of Excellence. 

Technologies To Achieve Progressive Collapse Resistance 

The committee is concerned about a total building failure that 

originates when a local failure of a primary structural component(s) leads to the collapse of adjoining members, which in turn 

leads to additional collapse. Hence, the extent of total building 

damage is disproportionate to the original source. In order to address this type of building failure, the committee is aware that the 

Secretary of Defense established anti-terrorism standards regarding progressive collapse resistance, Unified Facilities Criteria 4– 

023–03, to better control this action. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the anti-terrorism criteria, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011, that includes the following information: 

(1) An assessment of technologies available to meet requirements for construction compliant with progressive collapse resistance requirements; 

(2) An assessment of the cost to incorporate such requirements in new construction; and 

(3) A discussion of incorporation of affordable progressive collapse protection into planning for new construction. 

Vulnerability of Defense Critical Infrastructure to Electromagnetic 

Pulse Attack 

The committee is concerned about the vulnerability of Department of Defense critical infrastructure to electromagnetic pulse 

(EMP) and cyber attack. The committee is aware that the Department is undertaking energy-generation projects on some military 

installations, and is concerned that some of these initiatives may 

not include requirements related to energy security such as EMP 

and cyber attack hardening. The committee directs the Comptroller 

General to review assessments of the threat of EMP and cyber attack on DOD infrastructure, identify DOD programs or activities to 

mitigate the threat, and assess the extent to which the Defense 

Critical Infrastructure Program has incorporated this threat into 

its risk assessment methodology. The review shall consider the 

progress, findings, and recommendations of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse 

Attack. Initial findings shall be submitted no later than June 1, 

2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
514 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Availability of Military Construction Information on 

Internet 

This section would amend section 2851 of title 10, United States 

Code, and provide unrestricted access to military construction data 

to the general public. 

Section 2802—Authority To Transfer Proceeds From Sale of Military Family Housing to Department of Defense Family Housing 

Improvement Fund 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to transfer 

proceeds of the handling and the disposal of family housing, received pursuant to section 2831 of title 10, United States Code, to 

the Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund established under 

section 2883(c) of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 2803—Enhanced Authority for Provision of Excess 

Contributions for NATO Security Investment Program 

This section would amend section 2806 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to initiate construction 

services and certain construction projects, not otherwise authorized 

by law, as an element of excess North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

Security Investment program contribution. 

Section 2804—Duration of Authority To Use Pentagon Reservation 

Maintenance Revolving Fund for Construction and Repairs at 

Pentagon Reservation 

This section would rescind the authority of the Sectary of Defense to use the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving 

Fund for construction and repairs on September 30, 2012. The Secretary of Defense has reported that the overall Pentagon renovation is scheduled to be complete in fiscal year 2011. 

Section 2805—Authority To Use Operation and Maintenance Funds 

for Construction Projects Inside the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility 

This section would extend the Contingency Construction Authority first enacted by section 2808 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) until 

September 30, 2011. This section would also provide the Secretary 

of Defense the ability to waive the pre-notification requirements associated with section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, with regard to a construction project carried out under the authority of 

this section. Finally, the authority of this section would be limited 

to $200,000,000. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to 

increase this authority by $100,000,000, to a total of $300,000,000, 

for projects within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
515 

Section 2806—Veterans to Work Pilot Program for Military 

Construction Projects 

This section would establish a Veterans to Work Pilot program 

that requires veterans apprenticeship programs on 20 military construction projects annually through fiscal year 2015. This section 

would require that not later than 150 days after the end of each 

fiscal year during which the pilot program is active, the Secretary 

of Defense shall submit to Congress a report as to the implementation of the pilot program; by March 1, 2016, the Secretary of Defense should submit to Congress a report assessing the pilot program, including whether the program should be continued, modified, or expanded. 

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Notice-and-Wait Requirements Applicable to Real 

Property Transactions 

This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States 

Code, and require additional reporting requirements associated 

with leases of real property owned by the United States that were 

previously included in section 2667 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 2812—Treatment of Proceeds Generated From Leases of 

Non-Excess Property Involving Military Museums 

This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States 

Code, and authorize the secretary concerned to retain all the proceeds derived at a museum as a result of lease of non-excess property for the exclusive use by the museum developing such proceeds. 

Section 2813—Repeal of Expired Authority To Lease Land for 

Special Operations Activities 

This section would repeal section 2680 of title 10, United States 

Code, whose authority expired on September 30, 2005. 

Section 2814—Former Naval Bombardment Area, Culebra Island, 

Puerto Rico 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to remediate 

a portion of the bombardment area referred to as Flamenco Beach 

on the Island of Culebra, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to permit 

the land to be used for public park or public recreational purposes. 

This section would also require the Secretary to assess the extent 

of military munitions safety hazards and environmental contamination existing on the balance of the bombardment area. 

SUBTITLE C—PROVISIONS RELATED TO GUAM REALIGNMENT

Section 2821—Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of Providing Community Adjustment Assistance to Government of 

Guam 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the United 

States is required to construct major, new installations despite the 

adverse impact to the local communities. However, this section 

would also express the sense of Congress that it is incumbent on 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
516 

the federal government to offset the impact of these significant construction efforts. 

Section 2822—Department of Defense Assistance for Community 

Adjustments Related to Realignment of Military Installations 

and Relocation of Military Personnel on Guam 

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense temporary 

authority to assist the Government of Guam in mitigating the costs 

associated with the realignment of military forces to Guam, if the 

Secretary determines an unfair and excessive financial burden 

would be incurred by the Government of Guam, and the services 

and facilities would directly support the Guam realignment. This 

authority would be provided through existing federal programs. Finally, the transfer authority would be limited to $500,000,000 and, 

pending the receipt of semiannual reports on the execution of this 

authority, would expire on September 30, 2017. 

Section 2823—Extension of Term of Deputy Secretary of Defense’s 

Leadership of Guam Oversight Council 

This section would extend the Deputy Secretary of Defense’s 

leadership of the Guam Oversight Council until September 30, 

2020. 

Section 2824—Utility Conveyances to Support Integrated Water 

and Wastewater Treatment System on Guam 

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority 

to convey water and wastewater treatment utility systems to the 

Guam Waterworks Authority. As consideration for conveying these 

utilities, the Guam Waterworks Authority shall pay the fair market value of the conveyed infrastructure. If the Secretary of Defense and the Guam Waterworks Authority decide to convey these 

utilities, the Secretary of Defense shall be apportioned a 33 percent 

voting representation on the Guam Consolidated Commission on 

Utilities. If the Secretary conveys the water and wastewater treatment utility systems to the Guam Waterworks Authority, this section would require new water and wastewater systems to also be 

managed and operated by the Guam Waterworks Authority. Furthermore, in the determination of fair market value, the Secretary 

of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 

consider the value of in kind services provided by the Government 

of Guam pursuant to the Compact of Free Association between the 

Government of the United States and the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Government of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, and the Government of the Republic of Palau. Finally, this section would authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Defense to support the 

integrated water and wastewater treatment utility systems on 

Guam. 

Section 2825—Report on Types of Facilities Required To Support 

Guam Realignment 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees, within 180 days 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
517 

after the date of enactment of this Act, on the structural requirements of facilities necessary to support the realigned forces on 

Guam. 

Section 2826—Report on Civilian Infrastructure Needs for Guam 

This section would require the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Government of the Territory 

of Guam, and the Interagency Group on Insular Affairs, to provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the Senate Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources, within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary of Interior would be required to include in the report an assessment of the civilian infrastructure improvements needed on Guam to support the military relocation on 

Guam and identify potential funding sources to support the implementation of this effort. 

Section 2827—Comptroller General Report on Planned 

Replacement Naval Hospital on Guam 

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, 

within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on the size 

and scope of a naval hospital necessary to support the current and 

future military mission requirements and Department of Defense 

beneficiary population on the territory of Guam. 

SUBTITLE D—ENERGY SECURITY

Section 2831—Consideration of Environmentally Sustainable 

Practices in Department Energy Performance Plan 

This section would amend section 2911(c) of title 10, United 

States Code, by modifying the required elements of the Department 

of Defense energy performance plan to include consideration of hybrid-electric drive and high efficiency vehicles and opportunities for 

high-performance construction, lease, maintenance, and operation 

of buildings. 

Section 2832—Plan and Implementation Guidelines for Achieving 

Department of Defense Goal regarding Use of Renewable Energy 

To Meet Facility Energy Needs 

This section would amend section 2911(e) of title 10, United 

States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the secretaries of the military departments, to develop a plan 

and implementation guidelines for achieving the goal to produce or 

procure renewable energy equivalent to 25 percent of facility electrical use during fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter. 

Section 2833—Insulation Retrofitting Assessment for Department 

of Defense Facilities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services an assessment of Department of Defense 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
518 

facilities that, if retrofitted with improved insulation, would result 

in cost and energy savings. 

SUBTITLE E—LAND CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Conveyance of Personal Property Related to Wasteto-Energy Power Plant Serving Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

convey personal property for use in a waste-to-energy power plant 

in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. As consideration, the 

Borough would offset the waste disposal fees by the fair market 

value of the conveyed property. 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Whittier Petroleum, Oil, and 

Lubricant Tank Farm, Whittier, Alaska 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, to the City of Whittier, Alaska, a parcel 

of land for the purposes of local public activities. 

Section 2843—Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, approximately 194 acres at Fort Knox, 

Kentucky, to the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Commonwealth of Kentucky for the purpose of establishing and operating 

a state veterans home and future expansion of the adjacent veterans cemetery. 

Section 2844—Land Conveyance, Naval Support Activity (West 

Bank), New Orleans, Louisiana 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 

real property interests at the former Naval Support Activity (West 

Bank), New Orleans, Louisiana to the Algiers Development District. 

Section 2845—Land Conveyance, Former Navy Extremely Low 

Frequency Communications Project Site, Republic, Michigan 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, 

without consideration, approximately seven acres comprising the 

former Navy Extremely Low Frequency communications project 

site to Humboldt Township in Marquette County, Michigan, for the 

purpose of assisting the local public activities. 

Section 2846—Land Conveyance, Marine Forces Reserve Center, 

Wilmington, North Carolina 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, 

without consideration, the Marine Forces Reserve Center in Wilmington, North Carolina, to the North Carolina State Port Authority for development of a port facility and for other public purposes. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
519 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2851—Requirements Related to Providing World Class 

Military Medical Facilities 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a unified construction and repair standard for military medical facilities. The section would further require that the Secretary establish an advisory committee to assess the proposed design and organizational structure for military medical facilities in the national 

capital region to achieve a world-class medical facility. 

Section 2852—Naming of Armed Forces Reserve Center, 

Middletown, Connecticut 

This section would name the newly constructed Armed Forces 

Reserve Center in Middletown, Connecticut, as the ‘‘Major General 

Maurice Rose Armed Forces Reserve Center.’’ 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,257,002,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) military construction. The committee 

recommends authorization of $1,257,002,000 for OCO military construction. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
520 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here HR491.225
521 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here HR491.226
522 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here HR491.227
523 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here HR491.228
524 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Explanation of Funding Adjustments 

The committee recommends reduction or elimination of funding 

for several projects contained in the budget request for military 

construction and family housing. These reductions include: 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FISCAL YEAR 2010 PROJECTS

Section 2901—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize overseas contingency operations 

military construction projects for the Army. The authorized 

amounts are listed on a project-by-project basis. The list contained 

in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the Army may obligate 

on military construction projects. 

Section 2902—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize overseas contingency operations 

military construction projects for the Air Force. The authorized 

amounts are listed on a project-by-project basis. The list contained 

in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may obligate on military construction projects. 

SUBTITLE B—FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROJECTS

Section 2911—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize overseas contingency operations 

military construction projects for the Army. The authorized 

amounts are listed on a project-by-project basis. The list contained 

in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the Army may obligate 

on military construction projects. 

Section 2912—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize overseas contingency operations 

military construction projects for the Air Force. The authorized 

amounts are listed on a project-by-project basis. The list contained 

in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
525 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may obligate on military construction projects. 

Section 2913—Authorized Defense-Wide Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects and Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize overseas contingency operations 

military construction project for the defense agencies. The authorized amount is listed on a project-by-project basis. The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific project authorized at each location. Furthermore, this section 

would provide the authorization of appropriations for each project 

and provide an overall limit on the amount the defense agencies 

may obligate on the military construction project. 

Section 2914—Construction Authorization for National Security 

Agency Facilities in a Foreign Country 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to construct a facility in a foreign country for the National Security Agency. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2921—Notification of Obligation of Funds and Quarterly 

Reports 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees, within the notification period prescribed, as to the necessity and cost estimate of the 

proposed projects required under this title. This section would further require the Secretary to submit quarterly reports as to the obligations and expenditures of proposed projects. 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $17.8 billion for atomic energy defense activities, an increase of 7.4 percent from the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, $11.3 billion is for the 

programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

and $6.5 billion is for environmental and other defense activities. 

Last year, the committee expressed concern that the request for 

NNSA did not adequately address the recognized need for increased investment in the Stockpile Stewardship Program and in 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. The committee also 

noted that the fiscal year 2010 budget request reflected more risk 

within the NNSA programs than it did within Defense Environmental Cleanup activities. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
526 

This year, the budget request for the programs of the NNSA con- tained an increase of $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. Of that amount, the budget request for the Weapons 

Activities account that supports the Stockpile Stewardship Program increased by $624.4 million and the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account increased by $550.5 million. The budget request for Defense Environmental Cleanup contained an increase of 

$30.7 million above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. 

The committee supports these requests for increased funding and 

believes that the budget request for Department of Energy National Security Programs for fiscal year 2011 reflects a more balanced approach to meeting the diverse missions encompassed within the atomic energy defense activities account. The committee recommends $17.8 billion, the amount of the 

budget request. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
527 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here HR491.229
528 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here HR491.230
529 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here HR491.231
530 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here HR491.232
531 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here HR491.233
532 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here HR491.234
533 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here HR491.235
534 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here HR491.236
535 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here HR491.237
536 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here HR491.238
537 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here HR491.239
538 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here HR491.240
539 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $11.3 billion for the programs of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends $11.3 billion, the amount of the budget 

request. 

Weapons Activities 

The budget request contained $7.0 billion for the Weapons Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for 

fiscal year 2011. 

Over the past few years, increasing concern has been voiced regarding the NNSA’s ability to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile into the indefinite future. 

For example, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic 

forces during a July 17, 2008 hearing on the modernization of the 

nuclear weapons complex, each of the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratory directors expressed concerns about the reductions in 

highly skilled scientists and engineers at the labs required to make 

room for consolidation and improvements in the complex’s infrastructure. 

In May 2009, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic 

Posture of the United States reported that the ‘‘Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program (LEP) have been remarkably successful in refurbishing and modernizing the stockpile.’’ But at the same time, the commission concluded that these 

strategies ‘‘cannot be counted on for the indefinite future.’’ The 

commission noted that the NNSA’s ‘‘physical infrastructure is in serious need of transformation’’ and that the ‘‘intellectual infrastructure is also in trouble.’’ 

The JASON scientific advisory panel report from September 2009 

on the Life Extension Program noted: ‘‘All options for extending the 

life of the nuclear weapons stockpile rely on the continuing maintenance and renewal of expertise and capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons 

program.’’ The JASON panel concluded that ‘‘this expertise is 

threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission 

importance, and degradation of the work environment.’’ 

The committee therefore welcomes the increased funds in the 

budget request for Weapons Activities, which should begin the 

process of resolving the physical and intellectual infrastructure 

challenges facing the NNSA. However, the committee notes that 

these challenges can only be overcome through long-term program 

and budget stability. The committee recommends $7.0 billion for Weapons Activities, 

the amount of the budget request. 

Stockpile Stewardship 

The committee views execution of the science-based Stockpile 

Stewardship Program (SSP) as the core national security mission 

of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The SSP 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
540 

utilizes data from previous nuclear tests, unique experimental 

tools, unmatched advanced simulation and computing capabilities, 

and the world’s foremost nuclear weapons scientists, engineers, and 

technicians to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of our 

weapons without nuclear tests. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee expressed concern about the ability of NNSA to exercise the 

new experimental capabilities that have been developed, and to ensure that the scientists, engineers, and technicians employed in the 

nuclear security enterprise are actively engaged in challenging, 

meaningful work. Such activity is critical to the long-term management of the stockpile because specific areas of remaining uncertainty about the performance of our nuclear weapons can only be 

illuminated through scientific experiments using these capabilities. 

In contrast to last year, the committee believes that the budget 

request should be sufficient to properly exercise those experimental 

capabilities and to continue improving the nation’s ability to certify 

the nuclear weapons stockpile without additional nuclear weapons 

testing. 

Stockpile Management 

Section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the Secretary of Energy, 

in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to provide for the effective management of the weapons in the nuclear weapons stockpile. The provision created objectives for, and limitations on, the 

management of the nuclear weapons stockpile. 

The budget request included the following specific objectives as 

part of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) 

proposed stockpile management program: 

(1) Produce sufficient quantities of W76–1 warheads to meet 

Navy requirements; 

(2) Complete a life extension of the B61 that meets all safety, 

security, use control, and reliability objectives; 

(3) Initiate a life extension study to explore the path forward 

for the W78, consistent with the principles of the stockpile 

management program; 

(4) Modernize plutonium capabilities including the design 

and construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 

Facility Replacement-Nuclear Facility; 

(5) Modernize uranium capabilities with emphasis on the 

Uranium Processing Facility; and 

(6) Sustain and strengthen the science, technology and engineering, and surveillance base essential to supporting the 

stockpile. 

The committee supports these proposed objectives and is pleased 

that the Administration has adopted the framework of the stockpile 

management program as a significant element of the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review. 

However, the committee is concerned that artificial limitations 

might be applied to the options for managing the stockpile and observes that nothing within the statute would limit management of 

the nuclear weapons stockpile using the spectrum of options identified by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
541 

the United States in May 2009. The committee agrees with the 

JASON panel that: ‘‘Assessment and certification challenges depend on design details and associated margins and uncertainties, 

not simply on whether the LEP is primarily based on refurbishment, reuse, or replacement.’’ 

The committee believes that the NNSA should task its design 

and production agencies to thoroughly evaluate the spectrum of options for managing any particular stockpile system before deciding 

on a case-by-case basis on the specific mix of actions required to 

ensure that a given stockpile system can continue to achieve its 

current military capabilities in a safe, secure, and reliable manner. 

Directed Stockpile Work 

The budget request contained $1.9 billion for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), an increase of $392.5 million above the fiscal year 

2010 appropriated level. 

DSW includes activities to ensure the present and future operational readiness of nuclear weapons. While the committee welcomes the requested increase in DSW funding, it is concerned that 

the budget request does not contain sufficient resources to support 

production and dismantlement activities at the Pantex Plant in 

Amarillo, Texas. 

The committee recommends $1.9 billion for Directed Stockpile Work, including an increase of $11.0 million for DSW at Pantex to 

ensure that the W76–1 and B–61 life extension programs, stockpile 

surveillance and critical weapons dismantlement programs remain 

on schedule. 

Stockpile Surveillance 

Surveillance of stockpile weapons is essential to stockpile stewardship. Inadequate surveillance would place the stockpile at risk. 

In September 2009, the JASON scientific advisory panel found: 

‘‘The surveillance program is becoming inadequate. Continued success of stockpile stewardship requires implementation of a revised 

surveillance program.’’ The committee directs the National Nuclear 

Security Administration Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on its plans 

for implementing a revised surveillance plan by October 1, 2010. 

B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Life Extension Study 

The budget request contained $251.6 million for Directed Stockpile Work for the B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A Life Extension Study. 

The request would fund a study of the nuclear and non-nuclear 

components scope of the B61 life extension, including implementation of enhanced surety, extended service life, and modification consolidation. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

expects to complete the study by the end of fiscal year 2011 and 

is planning to deliver the first production unit (FPU) in 2017. 

The committee understands the importance of meeting a 2017 

delivery date and supports the full scope B–61 life extension study. 

However, the committee is concerned that the schedule for completion of the Life Extension Study has been delayed by a year, and 

is therefore concerned that the schedule for delivering the FPU by 

2017 is at risk. While the committee recognizes that a thorough 

project baseline cannot be delivered until the Life Extension Study 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
542 

is complete, it expects the NNSA Administrator for Nuclear Security to keep the committee fully informed of the progress toward establishing that baseline and of any significant changes to the 

schedule during the course of the year. 

Science Campaign 

The budget request contained $365.2 million for the Science 

Campaign for fiscal year 2011. The request included $85.7 million for Primary Assessment Technologies, which is the program responsible for development and implementation of the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty 

methodology used to certify weapons without testing. The request 

also included $77.0 million for Advanced Certification, a substantial increase above the $19.4 million provided in fiscal year 2010, 

to support the development of advanced certification capabilities. The committee recommends $365.2 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign 

The budget request contained $481.5 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, an increase of 

$23.6 million from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. 

This campaign, often referred to as the National Ignition Campaign, includes funding for performing experiments at the National 

Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The increase supports fabrication and installation of 

diagnostics necessary to utilize NIF for experiments under ignition 

conditions, a major requirement for applying NIF to weapons problems. 

The committee recommends $481.5 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign 

The budget request contained $615.7 million for the Advanced 

Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign. 

The committee notes that the ASC Campaign funds the principal 

means of validating the performance of nuclear weapons absent nuclear explosive tests. As the major experimental tools of the Stockpile Stewardship Program are brought on line, more data will be 

available to inform these advanced simulations. Such simulations 

will be more robust than past efforts, and should yield greater confidence in the nation’s enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. Therefore, the committee supports the $48.1 million increase in the ASC 

request from the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. 

The committee recommends $615.7 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Readiness Campaign 

The budget request contained $112.1 million for the Readiness 

Campaign, an increase of $12.1 million above the fiscal year 2010 

appropriated level. Of that total, $50.2 million was requested for 

Tritium Readiness to operate the tritium production capability required to sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile. 

The committee is aware that uncosted balances have accumulated in this account as a result of delays in tritium production and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
543 

extraction due to significant technical issues related to the irradiation of tritium producing burnable absorber rods. 

The committee understands that the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) is currently able to meet its stockpile requirements despite the lower than planned production rate by 

supplementing tritium production with recycled tritium from dismantled warheads. However, the committee is concerned that 

NNSA has identified neither effective technical solutions for increased tritium production nor viable alternative supplies. The 

committee does not support the additional funds in the budget request for Tritium Readiness and directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2011, a plan for ensuring a sufficient supply of tritium 

into the future. 

The committee recommends $61.9 million, a decrease of $50.2 

million for the Readiness Campaign. 

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 

The budget request contained $1.8 billion for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). 

RTBF supports the physical infrastructure and operational readiness of the nuclear security laboratories and plants. RTBF funds 

are divided between Operations and Maintenance, and Construction sub-programs. 

The committee is concerned that the request for Operations of 

Facilities, within the Operations and Maintenance account, is insufficient to support the facilities at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, 

Texas, and the Y–12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The committee recommends an additional $70.0 million to support the critical weapons program activities at these facilities. For the Y–12 facility, the committee recommends an additional $15.0 million for 

Material Recycle and Recovery activities within the Operations and 

Maintenance account to sustain enriched uranium recycle and recovery operations. 

The budget request also included funds for two of the most significant National Nuclear Security Administration infrastructure 

projects: $225.0 million for final design and initial construction of 

the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and 

$115.0 million in Project Engineering and Design work for the proposed Uranium Processing Facility at the Y–12 Plant. The committee supports both of these infrastructure modernization projects. 

The committee recommends $1.9 billion, an increase of $85.0 million, for RTBF. 

Use of prior year balances 

The committee is aware of significant prior year balances within 

the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) accounts 

which are beyond recommended levels, and directs the NNSA Administrator for Nuclear Security to use these funds to finance fiscal 

year 2011 budget requirements and offset the recommended funding increases for Directed Stockpile Work and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities mentioned above. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
544 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

The budget request contained $2.7 billion for Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Defense 

Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. 

The committee fully supports the goals of the NNSA’s nonproliferation programs and continues to believe that such programs 

are critical to U.S. national security and must be a top national security priority. In past years, the committee has expressed concern 

that a lack of effective policy guidance and leadership, as well as 

programmatic and funding constraints, have limited the progress of 

NNSA and other nonproliferation programs. The committee has 

also noted that despite the significant achievements of NNSA nonproliferation programs over more than 15 years, much remains to 

be done, and has emphasized the need for a strong national commitment to reinvigorate these programs. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181), the Duncan Hunter National Defense Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), and the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) addressed these concerns by increasing funding for NNSA nonproliferation programs, including the International Nuclear Materials and Cooperation (MPC&A) Program and the Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative. Public Law 110–181, Public Law 110–417 and 

Public Law 111–84 also: required a report by the President on nuclear terrorism prevention; required reports by the Secretary of Energy on strengthening and expanding the NNSA International Radiological Threat Reduction, MPC&A, and Global Initiatives for 

Proliferation Prevention programs; authorized a nonproliferation 

and national security scholarship and fellowship program; provided 

the Secretary of Energy with authority to accept international contributions for the NNSA Russian Plutonium Disposition and 

MPC&A programs; provided NNSA nonproliferation programs with 

authority for urgent nonproliferation activities; and included other 

provisions to ensure that wherever possible, NNSA nonproliferation 

programs address threats involving nuclear and radiological weapons and weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise. 

In addition, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–53), passed in the 110th 

Congress by both the House and Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly 

known as ‘‘the 9/11 bill,’’ included a number of provisions and authorized funding to accelerate, strengthen, and expand NNSA nonproliferation programs. Provisions include the establishment of 

both a presidential coordinator and a congressional-executive commission on the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. 

The committee welcomes the President’s accomplishments with 

respect to nonproliferation programs, as well as the President’s ongoing efforts to accelerate, strengthen, and expand such programs 

and ensure that they are a top priority going forward. This includes the President’s effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials 

around the world within four years, in order to ensure that such 

materials do not fall into the hands of terrorists. It also includes 

the successor agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 

(START) between the United States and the Russian Federation, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
545 

and the Nuclear Security Summit. This Act specifically supports 

the President’s goals and objectives for NNSA nonproliferation programs, and encourages these programs to maintain a particular 

focus on securing nuclear and radiological weapons and weaponsrelated materials and technologies at the source wherever possible. 

Moreover, the committee continues to welcome actions by the 

NNSA to eliminate impediments to timely obligation and execution 

of authorized and appropriated funds for NNSA nonproliferation 

programs. In recent years, such actions have enabled the NNSA to 

achieve a level of uncommitted uncosted balances for most NNSA 

nonproliferation programs that is below the acceptable levels established by the NNSA in close coordination with the Government Accountability Office. The committee encourages NNSA to continue 

its efforts to eliminate any remaining impediments to timely obligation and execution of funds for NNSA nonproliferation programs. 

The committee authorizes $2.7 billion, the amount of the budget 

request. 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development 

The budget request contained $351.6 million for Nonproliferation 

Research and Development (R&D). The committee fully supports 

the goals of the R&D program, and continues to note that the program is the sole remaining U.S. Government capability for longterm nuclear nonproliferation research and development. The committee also continues to emphasize the importance of expanding 

U.S. scientific skills and resources and improving U.S. Government 

capabilities relating to both short- and long-term innovative nonproliferation research and development that will maintain U.S. 

technological advantage in this area. 

The committee recommends $351.6 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Radiation detection technology 

The committee continues to encourage the National Nuclear Security Administration to work closely with the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office on the research and development of radiation detection technology to ensure 

there is no duplication of research efforts, but rather a collaborative complementary approach to research in areas of common interest. 

Nonproliferation and International Security 

The budget request contained $155.9 million for Nonproliferation 

and International Security (NIS). The committee fully supports the 

goals of the NIS program, and emphasizes the importance of developing innovative policy approaches to nonproliferation challenges 

and undertaking activities to increase nonproliferation cooperation 

with international partners and organizations. 

The committee also emphasizes the importance of strengthening 

export control and security systems and undertaking other safeguards activities relating to civil nuclear energy cooperation between the United States and other countries, including the Republic of India, in order to prevent theft or other illicit transfer of nuclear materials and technologies. The committee requests the NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:08 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00573 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
546 

tional Nuclear Security Administration to keep the committee fully 

informed of significant developments in this area. 

The committee recommends $155.9 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 

In recent years, the committee has been conducting vigorous 

oversight of the Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 

(GIPP) program. In section 3116 of the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee required a comprehensive review of the GIPP program and 

reports on the goals of the program, criteria for partnership 

projects under the program, the plans for existing and new 

projects, and project funding. The committee appreciates the information provided by the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) on the GIPP program in response to this reporting requirement, and in response to additional committee requests. The committee particularly welcomes the completion of an interagency risk 

assessment of project institutes and facilities in the former Soviet 

Union (FSU) and the decision to focus on high-priority institutes 

for engagement in this region. The committee also welcomes the 

cost-sharing goal for GIPP projects in the FSU. 

The committee recognizes that the GIPP program engagement 

activities with former weapons of mass destruction (WMD) scientists continue to serve important U.S. nonproliferation interests, 

in part by helping to impede transfers of WMD expertise and 

know-how to states of concern or terrorist entities. 

The committee encourages the NNSA to continue strengthening 

the management, implementation and oversight of the GIPP program as necessary to ensure the program achieves its intended 

nonproliferation objectives and in no way undermines U.S. national 

security interests. The committee also encourages the NNSA to 

consult with the committee regarding continued program improvements, and to keep the committee fully informed of significant program developments. 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009, the committee expressed its concerns regarding the proliferation risks associated with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 

(GNEP). The committee addressed these concerns in section 3117 

of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417). The committee notes the fiscal year 2010 

and fiscal year 2011 budget requests did not include any funding 

for GNEP from within any National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program line, and 

welcomes this positive development. 

The committee encourages NNSA to ensure that any activities 

relating to the promotion of civil nuclear energy do not create unintended proliferation risks. The committee also encourages NNSA 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs to increase their focus 

on developing alternatives to nuclear energy. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
547 

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 

The budget request contained $590.1 million for International 

Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A). The committee fully supports the goals of the MPC&A program, and emphasizes the importance of securing vulnerable nuclear weapons 

and weapons-usable material located outside the United States; 

and utilizing radiation detection equipment and related capabilities 

at high-threat border crossings and ports of transit to deter, detect, 

and interdict illicit transfers of materials that could be used in 

weapons of mass destruction or a radiological dispersion device, 

known as a ‘‘dirty bomb.’’ 

The committee recommends $590.1 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Second Line of Defense 

The committee continues to encourage the National Nuclear Security Administration to closely coordinate its Second Line of Defense efforts to deter, detect, and interdict illicit transfers of nuclear and radioactive materials at border crossings and ports with 

the efforts of any other relevant U.S. agency or department, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Fissile Materials Disposition 

United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition 

The budget request contained $917.7 million for United States 

Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition. 

The committee supports the goals of the United States Surplus 

Fissile Materials Disposition program. The committee also welcomes execution of program activities and functions relating to disposition of U.S. surplus weapons-grade plutonium and the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX project), including management and direction of the MOX project, from within the National 

Nuclear Security Administration Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Program, given the important nonproliferation objectives, benefits, 

and national security goals associated with these activities. 

The committee recommends $917.7 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition 

The budget request contained $113.0 million for Russian Surplus 

Fissile Materials Disposition. 

The committee supports the goals of the Russian Surplus Fissile 

Materials Disposition program, which include disposition of the 

Russian Federation’s surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The committee continues to emphasize the importance of nonproliferation 

cooperation with Russia to United States nonproliferation objectives and national security goals, and supports the President’s efforts to strengthen and expand such cooperation. 

The committee also welcomes efforts by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to resolve outstanding issues with 

Russia relating to the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program and to move the program forward in a manner that 

is consistent with the program’s nonproliferation objectives. This 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
548 

includes the signing of a Protocol by the United States and Russia 

to amend the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. At the same time, the committee continues to emphasize its 

concern with the use of fast reactors under the program for disposition of Russia’s surplus weapons-grade plutonium, and expects 

NNSA to ensure that any reactors used under the program do not 

produce plutonium and include necessary monitoring and inspection controls. The committee encourages the NNSA to keep the 

committee fully informed of significant program developments. The committee recommends $113.0 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative 

The budget request contained $558.8 million for the Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee fully supports 

the goals of the GTRI program, and emphasizes the importance of 

the President’s four-year plan to secure and remove all known, vulnerable, weapons-usable nuclear material around the world by 

2012. The committee also emphasizes the importance of converting 

domestic and international research reactors from the use of weapons-usable highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium; removing vulnerable high-priority radiological sources located outside 

the United States; removing excess and unwanted radiological 

sources within U.S. borders; securing sites with vulnerable highpriority nuclear and radiological sources located outside the United 

States; and securing U.S. research and test reactors and sites with 

high-priority radiological sources. The committee recommends $558.8 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Report on Securing Vulnerable Nuclear Materials 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to submit to the congressional defense committees, by April 1, 2011, a joint report on the contributions of the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program and the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs to the international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within 

four years. The report should update the committees on any 

changes to the existing interagency strategy and work plans of the 

CTR Program and NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs for the four-year effort. This includes any updates to metrics 

for measuring progress, funds required to carry out activities, and 

contributions from partner nations. The committee also encourages 

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to keep the 

committee fully informed of significant developments relating to 

the four-year effort. 

Naval Reactors 

The budget request contained $1.1 billion for Naval Reactors, an 

increase of $125.4 million above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated 

level. 

The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects of 

naval nuclear propulsion, from technology development through reactor operation, to reactor retirement. The Navy currently operates 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
549 

104 reactor plants in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, which make up 40 percent of the Navy’s total combatants. 

Naval Reactors is developing a new reactor for the CVN 21 class 

aircraft carrier, and a life-of-the-ship core for the Virginia-class attack submarine. The requested increases would support three key 

deliverables: the design of the Ohio-class submarine replacement 

reactor plant, the refueling of the land-based prototype located in 

New York State, and the recapitalization of the Expended Core Facility at the Naval Reactors Facility located on the Idaho National 

Laboratory. 

The committee recommends $1.1 billion, the amount of the budget request. 

Office of the Administrator 

The budget request contained $448.3 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of the Administrator. 

In recent years, the committee has encouraged the Office of the Administrator to address any issues of limited staff capacity, capabilities, and resources related to implementation of critical NNSA nonproliferation programs. The committee welcomes NNSA’s recent efforts to address such issues. 

The committee recommends $448.3 million, the amount of the 

budget request. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $6.5 billion for environmental and 

other defense activities. The committee recommends $6.5 billion, 

the amount of the budget request. 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Execution of Funding Provided for Defense Environmental Cleanup 

by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

The committee notes that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) provided an additional $5.1 

billion in funding for Defense Environmental Cleanup, of which approximately 99 percent was allocated to sites, 95 percent was obligated and 25 percent executed within the first year of execution. 

The committee is supportive of the progress made by the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management to achieve 

the aggressive cleanup goals set for its Public Law 111–5 efforts. 

These goals include: a reduction of the active cleanup footprint by 

40 percent by September 2011, acceleration by seven years of the 

disposition of legacy transuranic waste inventories at 11 sites, removal of 2 million tons of mill tailings at the Moab site, the acceleration of legacy cleanup, and the creation or retention of thousands of jobs at cleanup sites nationwide. The committee is pleased 

that approximately 10,000 jobs, including prime contractor and 

subcontractor positions, have been created or retained in the states 

of Idaho, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Washington as a result of Public Law 111–5 funding. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
550 

The committee commends the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management for making significant progress executing the 

funding and increased near-term work load provided for and required by Public Law 111–5. The committee encourages the Assistant Secretary to continue increased oversight over Public Law 111– 

5 projects, ensure that earned value management systems provide 

timely and reliable cost and schedule performance data, and consider workforce management and transition options beyond Public 

Law 111–5. 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

The budget request contained $740.2 million for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford site. 

The committee is encouraged that the Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) and the contractor team kept WTP cost and 

schedule performance on track in 2009 and reached a milestone by 

completing 50 percent of the project construction in October 2009. 

While the committee recognizes this progress, the committee is 

aware that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board continues 

to work with the Office of Environmental Management to resolve 

certain technical and safety issues associated with the design of the 

WTP. The committee is concerned that a technical issue identified 

in 2006, relating to the adequacy of pulse jet mixing in process vessels, remains unresolved and that new technical and safety issues 

have since emerged. 

The committee is aware that the budget request reflects an increase of $50.2 million over the amount authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2010. According to the budget request, this 

increase will accelerate completion of design, engineering, and procurements to reduce risk and improve project confidence. The committee understands that this increase does not reflect an increase 

in total project cost but a realignment of funding consistent with 

the heightened level of activity and investment required in the 

middle stages of construction projects. 

The committee is concerned that the Office of Environmental 

Management may be proceeding with procurement and installation 

of equipment for which specifications may change pending the resolution of the technical and safety issues described above. The committee expects the Office of Environmental Management to consider the potential impact of outstanding technical issues when 

making decisions related to procurement and installation of equipment and to carefully manage project risk. 

The committee authorizes $740.2 million for the WTP at the 

Hanford site, the amount of the budget request. 

Other Defense Activities 

The budget request contained $878.2 million for Other Defense 

Activities, including: $464.2 million for Health, Safety, and Security; $188.6 million for the Office of Legacy Management; and $88.2 

million for Nuclear Energy. 

The committee recommends $878.2 million for Other Defense Activities, the amount of the request. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
551 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

The committee is aware that the Secretary of Energy recently 

announced the formation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to provide recommendations for developing a 

safe, long-term solution to managing used nuclear fuel and nuclear 

waste. The commission will consider alternatives to the Yucca 

Mountain site, which remains designated as the sole repository site 

by law as set forth in section 10134 of title 42, United States Code. 

The committee is concerned that defense waste, which accounts for 

approximately 10 percent of the total material previously destined 

for disposition at the Yucca Mountain site, might be overlooked 

considering the breadth of civilian nuclear fuel cycle issues the 

panel will address. The committee expects the Secretary’s panel to 

focus on challenges and solutions that may be unique to defense 

waste. 

Report on Defense Repository at Yucca Mountain 

The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit to the 

congressional defense committees, within 120 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, a report on the steps and actions required to preserve and restart the nuclear waste repository located 

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as an option for disposing of defense 

nuclear waste, as well as a plan to complete a geologic repository 

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, that is able to accommodate the disposal of defense nuclear waste. 

Closing of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to jointly submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services within 180 days of enactment of this Act that provides a 

detailed analysis of how closing the Yucca Mountain waste repository will impact the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and national defense activities. This report shall include a description of the following: 

(1) An analysis of how the Department of Defense and Department of Energy can handle, transport, and store indefinitely its entire stockpile of high-level radioactive defense 

waste without a national repository. 

(2) The impact on the operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration to transform itself and the entire nuclear 

weapons complex to be smaller, safer, more secure, and more 

efficient. 

(3) The security risks associated with nuclear waste materials stored throughout the country in multiple locations. 

(4) A full assessment of the compliance of the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Energy with any agreements 

with States for the disposal of highly enriched defense nuclear 

fuel and radioactive wastes at Yucca Mountain. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
552 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2011, including funds for 

weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, 

naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator. 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup 

This section would authorize funds for defense environmental 

cleanup activities for fiscal year 2011. 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities 

This section would authorize funds for other defense activities for 

fiscal year 2011, including funds for Health, Safety, and Security, 

the Office of Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy. 

Section 3104—Energy Security and Assurance 

This section would authorize funds for energy security and assurance programs for fiscal year 2011. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Extension of Authority Relating to the International 

Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program of the 

Department of Energy 

This section would extend the date from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2018, for the International Nuclear Materials Protection, 

Control and Accounting program (currently known as the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program) to 

develop a sustainable nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting system for the Russian Federation’s nuclear materials 

that is supported solely by Russia. 

Section 3112—Energy Parks Initiative 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to facilitate 

the development of one or more energy parks on defense nuclear 

facility reuse property through the use of collaborative partnerships with state and local governments, the private sector, and 

community reuse organizations approved by the Secretary. 

Section 3113—Establishment of Technology Transfer Centers 

This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to establish a technology transfer center at each national security laboratory, subject to the availability of appropriations provided for this purpose. The purpose of the centers would be to foster collaborative scientific research, technology development, and 

the appropriate transfer of research and technology to users in addition to the national security laboratories. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
553 

Section 3114—Aircraft Procurement 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to procure 

not more than two aircraft with funds available from the weapons 

activities account in fiscal year 2011. The National Nuclear Security Administration intends to procure two B–737-like aircraft to 

replace forty-year-old aircraft for use by the Secure Transportation 

Asset organization for transporting agents, limited life weapons 

components, and emergency response teams. 

SUBTITLE C—REPORTS

Section 3121—Comptroller General Report on NNSA Biennial 

Complex Modernization Strategy 

This section would require the Comptroller General to review the 

adequacy of funding contained in the budget request to achieve the 

goals contained in each Biennial Plan and Budget Assessment on 

the Modernization and Refurbishment of the Nuclear Security 

Complex required by Section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). The Comptroller would be required to submit a review to Congress 90 days 

after the submission of the budget request to Congress during 

even-numbered years, consistent with the timing of the submission 

of the Biennial Plan and Budget Assessment. 

Section 3122—Report on Graded Security Protection Policy 

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to submit to 

a report to the congressional defense committees on the implementation of the graded security protection policy of the Department of 

Energy no later than February 1, 2011. 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $28.6 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2011. The committee 

recommends $28.6 million, the amount of the request. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3201—Authorization 

This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2011. 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize $23.6 million for fiscal year 2011 for 

operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Reserves. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
554 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for National 

Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2011 

This section would authorize a total of $359.0 million for the 

Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation for 

fiscal year 2011. Of the funds authorized, $100.0 million would be 

available for expenses necessary for operations of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; of which $30.9 million are authorized for 

capital improvements of the Academy, $15.0 million would be available for support of the various state maritime academies, $10.0 

million for the program to dispose of obsolete vessels of the National Defense Reserve Fleet, $174.0 million for the Maritime Security Program, and $60.0 million for the loan guarantee program authorized by chapter 537 of title 46, United States Code, commonly 

referred to as the Title XI Loan Program. 

Section 3502—Extension of Maritime Security Fleet Program 

This section would extend the authorization of the Maritime Security Fleet through fiscal year 2025. 

Section 3503—United States Merchant Marine Academy 

Nominations of Residents of the Northern Mariana Islands 

This section would amend section 51302(b) of title 46, United 

States Code, to change the nominating authority for appointment 

to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy from the Governor to the 

Delegate of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

This change standardizes appointment authority of the Northern 

Mariana Islands to conform to all other territories and possessions 

of the United States. 

Section 3504—Administrative Expenses for Port of Guam 

Improvement Enterprise Program 

This section would modify section 3512(c)(4) of the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(48 U.S.C. 1421r(c)(4)) to clarify that the Maritime Administration 

of the Department of Transportation has the authority to use up 

to three percent of any funding made available to the Port of Guam 

Improvement Enterprise Program for administration of the program. 

Section 3505—Vessel Loan Guarantees: Procedures for Traditional 

and Nontraditional Applications 

This section would amend section 53701 of title 46, United States 

Code, by defining a traditional application for a guaranteed loan 

under the section as an application which has a market, technology, or financial structure of a type that has proven successful 

in previous applications and does not present an unreasonable risk 

to the United States. A nontraditional application is an application 

which does not meet the requirements of a traditional application. 

The section would further amend section 53703 of title 46, United 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
555 

States Code, to modify the length of time in which the Secretary 

of Transportation or the Maritime Administrator has to either approve or reject applications for loan guarantees. 

DEPARTMENTAL DATA 

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance 

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, March 8, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH BIDEN, 

President of the Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same Bill. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, 

General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, March 8, 2010. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same Bill. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
556 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, 

General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, March 16, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH BIDEN, 

President of the Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, March 16, 2010. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
557 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, April 23, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH BIDEN, 

President of the Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

Included in this transmittal is a proposal to expand eligibility for 

concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans’ disability compensation to medically retired service members, which 

has estimated mandatory costs as outlined in the table below. The 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 requires that the cumulative 

effects of revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-asyou-go (PAYGO) requirement. In total, such legislation should not 

increase the on-budget deficit; if it does, it would produce a sequestration if it is not fully offset by the end of the Congressional session. This proposal would increase direct spending; therefore, it is 

subject to the PAYGO requirement. Offsets are included in the 

President’s FY 2011 Budget. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
558 

[In millions of dollars] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010– 2015 2010– 2020 

DOD/VA Concurrent Receipts Proposal: Cost: 

Effects on Veterans disability programs ............................................................................... 0 47 49 51 53 54 54 54 53 53 52 254 520 Effect on military retirement .................................................................................................. 0 217 346 435 511 531 541 550 560 570 581 2,040 4,842 

Total cost ........................................................................................................................... 0 264 395 486 564 585 595 604 613 623 633 2,294 5,362 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
559 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT S. TAYLOR, Principal Deputy General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, April 23, 2010. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

Included in this transmittal is a proposal to expand eligibility for 

concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans’ disability compensation to medically retired service members, which 

has estimated mandatory costs as outlined in the table below. The 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 requires that the cumulative 

effects of revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-asyou-go (PAYGO) requirement. In total, such legislation should not 

increase the on-budget deficit; if it does, it would produce a sequestration if it is not fully offset by the end of the Congressional session. This proposal would increase direct spending; therefore, it is 

subject to the PAYGO requirement. Offsets are included in the 

President’s FY 2011 Budget. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
560 

[In millions of dollars] 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010– 2015 2010– 2020 

DOD/VA Concurrent Receipts Proposal: Cost: 

Effects on Veterans disability programs ............................................................................... 0 47 49 51 53 54 54 54 53 53 52 254 520 Effect on military retirement .................................................................................................. 0 217 346 435 511 531 541 550 560 570 581 2,040 4,842 

Total cost ........................................................................................................................... 0 264 395 486 564 585 595 604 613 623 633 2,294 5,362 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
561 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT S. TAYLOR, 

Principal Deputy General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, May 13, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH BIDEN, 

President of the Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, May 13, 2010. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
562 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, May 18, 2010. 

Hon. JOSEPH BIDEN, 

President of the Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, 

General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, May 18, 2010. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the enclosed legislative proposals be enacted in this session of Congress. These proposals are submitted by the Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our request for enactment of the 

National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose additional legislative initiatives for consideration by Congress. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
563 

and the consideration of Congress, and that their enactment would 

be in accord with the program of the President. 

Sincerely, 

JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, General Counsel. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

COMMITTEE POSITION 

On May 19, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, approved H.R. 5136, as amended, by a vote of 59– 

0. 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC, May 19, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and Technology in 

H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology, 

and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our 

jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report 

and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of 

this bill by the House. 

The Committee on Science and Technology also asks that you 

support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which 

we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

BART GORDON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. BART GORDON, 

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Science and Technology has valid 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
564 

jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule 

a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. 

I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Science and Technology is not 

waiving its jurisdiction over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will 

support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on 

Science and Technology. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write to you regarding H.R. 5136, the 

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,’’ introduced on April 26, 2010. 

H.R. 5136 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize and appreciate 

your desire to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral 

of the bill. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill 

should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security 

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction over subject 

matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. 

Further, I request your support for the appointment of Homeland 

Security conferees during any House-Senate conference convened 

on this or similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter 

and your response be placed in the Committee Report accompanying the legislation and the Congressional Record during floor 

consideration of this bill. 

I look forward to working with you on this legislation and other 

matters of great importance to this nation. 

Sincerely, 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
565 

I agree that the Committee on Homeland Security has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a 

mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I 

agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions 

of the bill, the Committee on Homeland Security is not waiving its 

jurisdiction over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the 

appointment of conferees from the Committee on Homeland Security. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Ways and Means in matters 

being considered in H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have valid claims to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 

that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and 

as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 

by the House. 

I also wish to commend you for including in H.R. 5136, a requirement that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the U.S. 

Trade Representative, consider the effect that other countries’ 

trade policies have on the ability of the United States to obtain 

rare earth minerals. Not only are those minerals critically important for many defense applications, they are also critical for many 

other high-tech applications such as wind turbine and hybrid gasoline-electric automobiles—and, as a result, to U.S. manufacturing 

competitiveness. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Chairman. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
566 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. SANDER M. LEVIN, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up 

of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that 

by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the bill, 

the Committee on Ways and Means is not waiving its jurisdiction 

over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the 

subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Ways and Means. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 5136, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. There 

are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs agrees not to request a sequential referral. By 

waiving consideration of H.R. 5136, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over any subject matter contained in the bill which falls within its jurisdiction. 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs reserves its right to seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in a House-Senate conference, and requests your support if 

such a request is made. 

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 5136 

and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the 

measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit 

in which you have worked with the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER, Chairman. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
567 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. BOB FILNER, 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up 

of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that 

by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the bill, 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction 

over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the 

subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to review 

the text of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011, for provisions which are within the jurisdiction 

of the Committee on Natural Resources. Among these provisions 

are those dealing with compensation and benefits for the NOAA 

Corps, as well as a report on civilian infrastructure needs for Guam 

in light of the upcoming military realignment in the Pacific. 

Because of the continued cooperation and consideration that you 

have afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I will 

not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 5136 based on their inclusion 

in the bill. Of course, this waiver is not intended to prejudice any 

future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named 

from the Committee on Natural Resources on these provisions, and 

request your support if such a request is made. 

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 5136 

and the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure 

on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which 

you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
568 

With warm regards, I am 

Sincerely, 

NICK J. RAHALL II, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. NICK J. RAHALL II, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a 

mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I 

agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions 

of the bill, the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its 

jurisdiction over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the 

appointment of conferees from the Committee on Natural Resources. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011. While this legislation as reported contains 

subject matter within the jurisdiction of Committee on Financial 

Services, the committee waives consideration of the bill in order to 

expedite floor consideration of this important legislation. 

The Committee on Financial Services takes this action only with 

the understanding that the committee’s jurisdictional interests over 

this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 

The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to 

any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your 

support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your 

including this letter in the committee report or in the CongresVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00596 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
569 

sional Record during consideration of H.R. 5136 on the House 

Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

BARNEY FRANK, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. BARNEY FRANK, 

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a 

mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I 

agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions 

of the bill, the Committee on Financial Services is not waiving its 

jurisdiction over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the 

appointment of conferees from the Committee on Financial Services. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write to you regarding H.R. 5136, the 

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011’’. 

H.R. 5136 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I recognize 

and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the 

House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek 

a sequential referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision 

to forgo a sequential referral of the bill does not waive, reduce, or 

otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure over H.R. 5136. 

Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees during any 

House-Senate conference convened on this legislation on provisions 

of the bill that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction. I ask for 

your commitment to support any request by the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure for the appointment of conferees 

on H.R. 5136 or similar legislation. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
570 

Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s jurisdictional interest in the Committee Report on H.R. 5136 and in the 

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure in the 

House. 

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass this 

important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain 

provisions of the bill, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters. Should 

this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing about H.R. 5136, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. I appreciate your 

efforts to consult with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of H.R. 5136 that fall 

within the Oversight Committee’s jurisdiction. These provisions involve the federal civil service and federal acquisition policies, 

among other things. 

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 5136, the 

Oversight Committee will not request a sequential referral of this 

bill. I would, however, request your support for the appointment of 

conferees from the Oversight Committee should H.R. 5136 or a 

similar Senate bill be considered in conference with the Senate. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
571 

Moreover, this letter should not be construed as a waiver of the 

Oversight Committee’s legislative jurisdiction over subjects addressed in H.R. 5136 that fall within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee. 

Finally, I request that you include our exchange of letters on this 

matter in the Committee Report on H.R. 5136 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation on the House 

floor. Again, I appreciate your willingness to consult the Committee 

on these matters. 

Sincerely, 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, 

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain 

provisions of the bill, the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters. Should 

this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in matters 

being considered in H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. My decision to waive further consideration of H.R. 5136 is 

conditional on our mutual understanding that no part of this legisVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00599 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
572 

lation waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

I respectfully request that a copy of this letter and your response 

acknowledging this Committee’s jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional 

Record during consideration of this bill by the House. 

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also asks that 

you support my request to include conferees on the provisions over 

which we have jurisdiction during any conference between the 

House and the Senate. 

I thank you for your continued leadership. 

Sincerely, 

SILVESTRE REYES, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. SILVESTRE REYES, 

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has 

valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 

legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain 

provisions of the bill, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters. Should 

this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 5136, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

This bill contains provisions within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs. In the interest of permitting your 

Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this 

important bill, I am willing to waive this Committee’s right to 

mark up this bill. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
573 

waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. 

Further, I request your support for the appointment of Foreign 

Affairs Committee conferees during any House-Senate conference 

convened on this legislation. 

Please include a copy of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the 

House floor. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. HOWARD L. BERMAN, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up 

of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that 

by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the bill, 

the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction 

over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the 

subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing regarding H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. As you 

know, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdictional 

interest in a number of provisions of this bill. 

In light of the interest in moving this bill forward promptly, I do 

not intend to exercise the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce by seeking sequential referral of H.R. 5136. I do 

this, however, only with the understanding that forgoing consideration of H.R. 5136 at this time will not be construed as prejudicing 

this Committee’s jurisdictional interests and prerogatives on the 

subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. In addition, 

we reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
574 

of conferees to any House-Senate conference named to consider 

such provisions. 

I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 

Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Thank 

you for your cooperation on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. HENRY A. WAXMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule 

a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. 

I agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not 

waiving its jurisdiction over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will 

support the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Education and Labor in matters being considered in H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5136 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to 

request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, 

and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our 

jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
575 

and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of 

this bill by the House. 

The Committee on Education and Labor also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we 

have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on Education and Labor has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a 

mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I 

agree that by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions 

of the bill, the Committee on Education and Labor is not waiving 

its jurisdiction over these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject of a House-Senate conference, I will support 

the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Education 

and Labor. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is to advise you that, as a result of 

your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, that fall 

within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

we are able to agree to waive seeking a formal referral of the bill, 

in order that it may proceed without delay to the House floor for 

consideration. 

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5136 at this 

time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will 

be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward, so that we may address any remaining 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
576 

issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to 

seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 

House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and 

requests your support for any such request. 

I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 

Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Thank 

you for your attention to this request, and for the cooperative relationship between our two committees. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, May 21, 2010. 

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up 

of this bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I agree that 

by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the bill, 

the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction over 

these matters. Should this bill or similar legislation be the subject 

of a House-Senate conference, I will support the appointment of 

conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary. 

This exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 

on the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman. 

FISCAL DATA 

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2011 and each of the 

following five fiscal years. The results of such efforts are reflected 

in the committee cost estimate, which is included in this report 

pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional 

Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
577 

Congressional Budget Office Preliminary Cost Estimate 

MAY 21, 2010. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue 

effects of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Armed Services on May 19, 2010. CBO’s complete cost estimate for 

H.R. 5136, including discretionary costs, will be provided shortly. 

Based on legislative language for H.R. 5136 that was provided to 

CBO on May 18 and May 19, CBO estimates that on net, enacting 

this bill would increase direct spending by about $4 billion in 2011, 

and decrease such spending by $15 million over the 2011–2015 period and by $2 million over the 2011–2020 period. The largest 

budgetary effects over that 10-year period would result from 

changes in retirement programs and the requirement that certain 

funds in a Department of Defense revolving fund be transferred to 

the Treasury and deposited in a miscellaneous receipts account, 

where they could not be spent without an appropriation. 

In addition, a shift in the payment dates for military annuitants 

would increase direct spending in fiscal years 2011 and 2016 by 

about $4 billion each year and would decrease direct spending in 

subsequent years by identical amounts. (As a result, those changes 

would have no net impact over both the 2011–2015 period and the 

2011–2020 period.) Enacting the bill would decrease revenues by $2 million over the 

2011–2020 period by allowing certain military retirees to receive a 

portion of their retirement pay tax-free. In total, CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 5136 would have no net effect on the deficit over 

the 2011–2020 period. For the purposes of this estimate, we assume that H.R. 5136 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal 

year 2011. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Schmit, who 

can be reached at 226–2840. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

cc: Honorable Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, Ranking Member. 

Committee Cost Estimate 

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee is required to include a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
578 

as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, which are in the bill or the report. 

The following table provides the list of such provisions which are 

included in the bill and the report: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
579 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 HR491.241
580 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 HR491.242
581 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 HR491.243
582 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 HR491.244
583 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 660 HR491.245
584 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 661 HR491.246
585 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 662 HR491.247
586 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 663 HR491.248
587 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 HR491.249
588 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 HR491.250
589 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 HR491.251
590 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS 

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings 

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant 

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are reflected in the body of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new spending or 

credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase or decrease in 

tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed 

in the estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(2) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of H.R. 

5136 is to strengthen our national security through a sound and 

balanced strategy to provide the resources we need to sustain two 

wars today and to be prepared for the threats of tomorrow, whatever and wherever they may be. The bill achieves this goal through 

the following four objectives: strengthening our counterterrorism 

efforts; strengthening our missile defense; strengthening our nonproliferation efforts; and strengthening support for our service 

members and their families. 

To strengthen our counterterrorism efforts, the bill fully supports 

the President’s new counterinsurgency strategy in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, authorizing $159.3 billion for fiscal year 

2011 overseas contingency operations to provide military commanders with the resources they need. It supports the President’s 

strategy on both sides of the border, helping to strengthen our relationship with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by expanding Coalition Support Funds, and it supports the President’s efforts to 

strengthen strategic partnerships with other key nations, such as 

the Republic of Yemen. The bill also takes important steps to create a more comprehensive approach to counterterrorism, placing a 

greater emphasis on understanding the recruitment methods used 

by violent extremists and taking the necessary action to help prevent them. Additionally, the bill takes steps to improve force protection both domestically and abroad. 

The bill takes unprecedented steps to strengthen missile defense, 

better aligning our missile defense policy to meet the threats of the 

21st century. The bill provides support to the Phased, Adaptive Approach to missile defense. It authorizes $10.3 billion for ballistic 

missile defense, including $190.8 million for modifications to the 

PAC–3 Patriot missile program and $7.0 billion for the NNSA 

Weapons Activities account to support stockpile stewardship and 

management. 

The bill strengthens our nonproliferation policy, fully supporting 

the President’s efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear material around 

the world in four years. It authorizes $2.7 billion for the Department of Energy’s nonproliferation programs, including $558.8 milVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00618 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
591 

lion for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and $590.1 million 

for International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation. 

To strengthen our military families, the bill provides an array of 

measures to provide better care and benefits to service members 

and their families. It includes a 1.9 percent pay raise to the troops, 

increases family separation allowance for service members who are 

deployed away from their families, increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay, and expands college loan repayment benefits. It 

also allows military families to extend TRICARE coverage to their 

dependent adult children until age twenty-six. It includes the most 

comprehensive legislative package, twenty eight provisions, to implement into law many of the recommendations of the Defense 

Task Force on Sexual Assault. It establishes two new pilot programs, one to offer an alternative career path to military officers, 

and the other to help military spouses identify and obtain desirable 

and portable careers. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT 

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

ACT 

Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344): 

(1) This legislation does not provide budget authority subject 

to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of Public Law 

93–344; 

(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO’s projection of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget 

authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for 

fiscal year 2011 and for the ensuring four fiscal years; and 

(3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget authority for assistance to state and local governments by this 

measure at the time that this report was filed. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES 

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no federal intergovernmental mandates. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT 

The committee finds that this legislation establishes the National 

Defense Panel in section 1051 of this Act, and the Sexual Assault 

Advisory Board in section 1621 of this Act, which may qualify as 

advisory committees within the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., section 

5(b). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
592 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

The committee finds that this legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

RECORD VOTES 

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, record votes were taken with respect to 

the committee’s consideration of H.R. 5136. The record of these 

votes is contained in the following pages. 

The committee ordered H.R. 5136 to be reported to the House 

with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 59–0, a quorum 

being present. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
593 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here HR491.252
594 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here HR491.253
595 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here HR491.254
596 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here HR491.255
597 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here HR491.256
598 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here HR491.257
599 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here HR491.258
600 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here HR491.259
601 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

The committee has taken steps to make available the analysis of 

changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by clause 3(e) 

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and will 

make the analysis available as soon as possible. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(602) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM MARSHALL 

On February 24, 2010, Members of the Readiness Subcommittee 

received testimony on energy management and initiatives on military installations. As the Department continues to embark on independent energy initiatives, I remain concerned that it is not adequately taking into account the possibility of installing small nuclear reactors on military installations that are hardened against 

electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and cyber attacks. 

In the FY10 NDAA, I inserted Directive Report Language (Sec. 

2845 in the Conference Report) requiring the Secretary of Defense 

to study the development of nuclear power plants on military installations. That report is still pending. 

I believe the DOD should slow down its non-nuclear independent 

energy initiatives, which remain vulnerable to EMP and cyber attack, while giving closer look to developing small, hardened nuclear 

power plants on military installations so that we have completely 

self-sufficient energy in the event of a catastrophic disruption to 

our power supply. Should such an event occur, the DOD must, beyond continuing to carry out its mission, be ready to provide power, 

not just services, to affected communities. At this point, wind turbines, solar, et cetera, cannot be hardened against EMP, and it’s 

frankly the EMP attack that we’re most vulnerable to here in the 

United States, the results of which would be disastrous should we 

not be prepared. 

Therefore, I included language in the FY11 NDAA requiring the 

Comptroller General to review assessments of the threat of EMP 

and cyber attack on DOD infrastructure, identify DOD programs or 

activities to mitigate the threat, and assess the extent to which the 

Defense Critical Infrastructure Program has incorporated this 

threat into its risk assessment methodology. The review shall consider the progress, findings, and recommendations of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, including the degree to which the commission is evaluating the utility of hardened small nuclear reactors. 

The review shall also consider the degree to which DOD’s decision 

making process for energy generation projects considers energy security requirements. 

Additionally, I remain concerned about the DOD’s plan for the 

defense of our homeland against ballistic missile threats, including 

EMP attacks, particularly from missiles launched by rogue, nonstate actors. These rogue actors will likely not launch from land, 

which would be easily traceable and result in our rapid, devastating response against its host country. Instead, it’s more likely 

that terrorists would launch a ballistic missile from the sea. The 

missile and launch platform need not be particularly sophisticated 

for an EMP attack. And if the launch platform is a ship, it could 

be immediately scuttled, making it difficult or impossible to deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00630 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
603 

mine the origin of the weapon and greatly limiting the effectiveness 

of retaliatory deterrence. This concern prompted my bill language 

requiring an independent assessment of the plan to defend the 

homeland against the mobile and fixed threats of ballistic missiles 

from rogue, non-state actors and accidental or unauthorized 

launches. 

JIM MARSHALL. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(604) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

We support H.R. 5136 and believe that it reflects our committee’s 

strong and continued support for the brave men and women of the 

United States armed services. In many ways, this bill is a good bill 

that does an admirable job dealing with some of our greatest national security challenges. 

H.R. 5136 authorizes the President’s request for $567 billion for 

the Fiscal Year 2011 base budget of the Department of Defense and 

national security programs of the Department of Energy. Additionally, it includes $159 billion to fund Fiscal Year 2011 war costs in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and $34 billion for Fiscal Year 2010 emergency supplemental funding to cover additional costs related to the 

increased effort in Afghanistan and the DOD response to the earthquake in Haiti. 

While there are many excellent initiatives in this bill, this remains imperfect legislation. 

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen 

With respect to Afghanistan, this bill updates reporting requirements, including asking for the conditions and criteria that will be 

used to measure progress, instead of allowing the ticking Washington political clock to determine our end state. We are very 

pleased that the Chairman and our colleagues on the committee 

joined us in ensuring that life-saving combat enablers—such as 

force protection, Medical Evacuation, and Intelligence Surveillance 

Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities—are deployed in time to fully 

support the 30,000 additional troops scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by this summer. 

This provision, along with a reporting requirement on how the 

Department of Defense is addressing the indirect fire threat on 

U.S. Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in Afghanistan, are only 

first steps to supporting General McChrystal and our deployed 

troops. But they are important first steps in getting the resources 

to theater so our troops can accomplish their mission with the least 

possible risk. 

With respect to Pakistan, the bill includes and we support the 

Administration’s request to extend the Pakistan Counterinsurgency 

Fund (PCF) for another year. We continue to question the rationale 

behind moving the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund 

(PCCF) to the State Department, especially when DOD has proven 

its ability to execute similar programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. We 

are happy to see that this committee will continue to monitor the 

management of PCCF so we can ensure the Commander of the 

United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has the flexibility 

and speed he needs to train and equip Pakistani security forces. 

As in previous bills, the committee continues to address the Department’s global train and equip authorities. We have worked toVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00632 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
605 

gether to ensure these authorities allow the Department to get 

ahead of our most important national security challenges. We commend the Chairman for working to ensure that 1206 funds will be 

used to assist the Yemen counter-terrorism unit fight al Qaeda in 

the Arabia Peninsula. This reinforces our view that building partnership capacity programs is an essential tool for Combatant Commanders. 

Detainees and the Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

With respect to detainee policy, this legislation could have taken 

a stronger stand on preventing the transfer of terrorists detained 

at Guantanamo Bay into the United States—either for confinement 

or trial. Too many former Guantanamo detainees have returned to 

the battlefield and are actively trying to harm Americans. We need 

to keep terrorists off of our soil, not fight to get them here. We are 

disappointed the committee did not support our amendment that 

would have prevented the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay detainee to U.S. soil. 

We were pleased that the committee adopted a modified version 

of our amendment that would require the DOD Inspector General 

to investigate possible misconduct of detainee attorneys, but are 

disappointed that the Attorney General would retain veto authority 

over the commencement of such investigations. In our view, these 

investigations need to commence immediately. 

Nuclear Posture 

Similarly, this bill could have taken prudent steps to ensure we 

defend America from a position of strength, rather than a position 

of weakness. With respect to Iran, we continue to see Tehran flout 

its international obligation not to pursue nuclear weapons, while 

the Administration continues to rely on possible U.N. sanctions and 

an engagement strategy that has not yielded results. Requiring the 

Department of Defense to engage in robust strategic planning will 

only serve to strengthen our Iran policy. 

In the nuclear policy arena, we need to adopt policies that 

strengthen our security, not disarm it. Time and time again our 

nuclear forces have protected our shores by acting as a clear deterrent to our adversaries. The administration’s recent Nuclear Posture Review changes our nation’s long-standing policy of calculated 

ambiguity to a policy that takes options off the table in protecting 

the United States and our allies from potential aggressors. 

In that regard, we are gratified that the committee adopted our 

amendment that our national policy should be to keep all our strategic response options open, and not foreclose use of our nuclear deterrent without regard to the potential actions of our foes. Similarly, we are pleased that the committee adopted language restricting future reductions in our nuclear forces until certain reviews 

and certifications are made. The committee is sending a strong 

message to the administration that we have grave concerns about 

the changes it is making to America’s nuclear policies. We hope nuclear weapons are never employed again; nonetheless, we firmly believe a credible and reliable nuclear deterrent, combined with our 

past determination to keep all options open, has provided the citiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:46 May 23, 2010 Jkt 056423 PO 00000 Frm 00633 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
606 

zens of the United States protection for decades and will continue 

to do so for the foreseeable future. 

Missile Defense 

Likewise, our missile defense policies must support the design 

and deployment of a comprehensive missile defense system capable 

of protecting the U.S. homeland, our deployed military forces, and 

our allies. We are pleased the committee supported a $361.6 million increase to missile defense. We argued that such a topline increase was necessary to implement the administration’s myriad 

missile defense commitments which include: sustainment of our 

homeland defense capabilities, implementation of the new phased 

adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe, expanded missile 

defense inventories, increasing testing, strengthening international 

efforts, and continuing promising research and development such 

as directed energy technology. 

The committee endorsed our effort to clarify that the Congress 

expects there to be no limitations on missile defense in Europe resulting from ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, despite Russian statements to the contrary. 

We are prepared to support the administration’s new phased 

adaptive approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe. However, 

we must have confidence that the plans are credible. We remain 

concerned about the lack of information and analysis on the PAA, 

and were pleased the committee supported our demand for a detailed report on the PAA. Furthermore, we remain concerned that 

the Administration’s hedging strategy may not go far enough to 

provide protection of the U.S. homeland. The PAA is not planned 

to cover the United States until 2020, yet the ICBM threat from 

Iran could materialize as early as 2015 according to the latest intelligence assessments. We need to ensure continued investments 

in and enhancements to our homeland defense capabilities, and 

were therefore disappointed that the committee rejected our 

amendment to maintain and refurbish a ground-based missile defense field in Alaska to increase near-term protection of the United 

States. 

Quadrennial Defense Review 

While the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has taken many 

forms over the years, it has become the most important periodic 

national security community review of our defense strategy. We all 

agree that our defense strategy should be driven by our defense 

needs—not solely by the budget. Yet, the Administration sent to 

Congress a QDR that provided the force structure of 2009 instead 

of a projected force structure to defeat the threats of 2029, as required by the statute. We need to take additional steps to reshape 

the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, which 

was designed to forecast future threats and shape the Pentagon’s 

investment decisions to meet those challenges. 

We are pleased the committee adopted several amendments that 

address our concerns with the most recent QDR. These include 

amendments that would require the Department of Defense to: provide a comprehensive review of national defense requirements 

without regard to budget considerations in future QDRs; provide a 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
607 

strategic assessment on the current and future strategic challenges 

posed to the United States by potential competitors out to 2021; as 

well as deliver a report on the military’s capability to defend 

against advanced anti access capabilities of potential hostile countries. 

Major Weapons Programs 

We are troubled that the legislation largely supports the administration’s continued limited approach to procurement of proven 

major weapons systems such as the F–22 and the C–17. Even so, 

we are pleased that the committee adopted our amendment for the 

procurement of eight additional F–18 Super Hornets for the Navy 

to help close the long acknowledged strike fighter shortfall. 

We are very pleased that the bill includes a provision that holds 

the Department of Defense accountable for performance of the 

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program as they implement plans to restructure the program and increase production rates. We also 

strongly support the inclusion of funding to complete development 

of the F136 alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. We are 

concerned that the Department of Defense would elect to procure 

several thousand F–35 engines over the next 25 years at a life cycle 

cost of well over $100 billion through a sole source contract. This 

bill continues to support long-standing Congressional belief that a 

competitive engine development program would better ensure an 

affordable, reliable engine, and protect against the operational risk 

of having 95 percent of the entire U.S. fighter fleet dependent on 

one engine. 

Other commendable initiatives in this bill include provisions that 

make significant contributions to the National Guard and Reserve 

Equipment account and takes steps to address many of the unfunded requests of the Services Chiefs. 

Military Personnel 

Finally, we need to take additional steps to ensure our military 

personnel and their families receive the support they have earned. 

Foremost, the bill addresses many of this committee’s priorities in 

supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces, their spouses 

and families. Among the important measures contained in that report are a 1.9% basic pay raise. We are pleased that the chairman 

and the committee supported making it clear that the Secretary of 

Defense has sole authority over military health care and the 

TRICARE program. A major disappointment is that once again the 

committee and House leadership were unable to find the mandatory spending offsets needed to eliminate the Widow’s Tax—a tax 

that occurs because survivors must forfeit most or all of their Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity to receive Dependency Indemnity Compensation. Nor were we able to provide for concurrent receipt of 

military disability retired pay and VA disability pay, as proposed 

by the President. 

We know that the chairman has attempted to find the offsets, 

but so far, despite the House approval of trillions in spending that 

is not offset, this body has been unable or unwilling to find the 

means to support widows and disabled veterans. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
608 

Fort Hood 

We are pleased the committee adopted our amendment that 

would provide combat zone benefits to the military and DOD civilian employee victims of the Fort Hood shootings. In the event of 

the unfortunate real possibility of future heinous attacks occurring 

outside designated combat zones, the amendment also provides the 

Secretary of Defense authority to make similar payments without 

need of future legislation. We are, however, deeply disappointed 

that the committee refused to require the public release of the restricted annex to the review of the Fort Hood shootings. American 

citizens need to know why a U.S. Army officer chose to murder and 

wound defenseless soldiers and civilians. So far, despite widespread 

reporting of the incident, this committee unfortunately has chosen 

to side with the Administration to keep the full facts from the 

American public. 

While this bill does much to fulfill our Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, particularly with respect to providing 

for the current needs of our deserving men and women in uniform, 

we have some ways to go in preparing for dire threats maturing 

in the very near future. We have accomplished much, and have 

much left to do. We join all members of this proud committee to 

continue to work for the betterment of our Armed Forces to secure 

America’s future. 

Those who serve—and will serve in years to come—deserve our 

commitment to keep America strong and preserve America’s preeminent leadership role in the world. 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON. 

BILL SHUSTER. 

MIKE ROGERS. 

DOUG LAMBORN. 

MICHAEL R. TURNER. 

MIKE COFFMAN. 

MARY FALLIN. 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. 

JOHN FLEMING. 

ROSCOE BARTLETT. 

FRANK LOBIONDO. 

J. RANDY FORBES. 

W. TODD AKIN. 

ROB BISHOP. 

JOE WILSON. 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY. 

THOMAS ROONEY. 

DUNCAN D. HUNTER. 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN. 

JOHN KLINE. 

TODD R. PLATTS. 

MAC THORNBERRY. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

JEFF MILLER. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(609) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL R. 

TURNER 

Thank you Chairman Skelton and Chairman Ortiz for including 

my directive report language within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The language directs the Secretary of Defense to report on how 

to best leverage the Sensors Center of Excellence (CoE) at WrightPatterson Air Force Base established by the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure. The Center, its associated radars, and the Air 

Force Research Laboratory’s ongoing research in detect, sense and 

avoid technologies creates a unique capability and opportunity for 

the Air Force and our Nation. The Center, as initially discussed 

with the Air Force, could be utilized to leverage untapped assets 

in Southwest Ohio, such as the Wilmington Air Park, and the 

Brush Creek and Buckeye Military Operating Areas. 

Furthermore, its proximity to the National Air and Space Intelligence Center uniquely qualifies the Sensors Center of Excellence 

to make a significant contribution in development of capabilities essential for our Nation. The U.S. military already relies on these capabilities in conflicts we are addressing today and the civilian 

world could use them in the near future to facilitate their tasks, 

including law enforcement or border patrol. Therefore, I believe 

that the Pentagon as well as other entities will greatly benefit from 

the study my language mandates. 

Once again, I’d like to thank the Chairman and the committee 

for including this provision in the report language. 

MICHAEL R. TURNER. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING