" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

111–201 

Calendar No. 414 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 3454]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 4, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of May 28 (legislative 

day, May 26), 2010 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

56–612 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–201 

Calendar No. 414 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 3454]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 4, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of May 28 (legislative 

day, May 26), 2010 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

(111th Congress, 2d Session) 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

JOSEPH W. BOWAB, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1 

Committee overview ................................................................................................ 2 

Explanation of funding summary .................................................................... 3 

Summary table of authorizations ............................................................. 5 

Budget authority implication table .......................................................... 10 

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 11 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 11 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 11 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 11 

Airborne common sensor and enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system (sec. 111) ............................................. 11 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 11 

Multiyear funding for detail design and construction of LHA replacement ship designated LHA–7 (sec. 121) .............................................. 11 

Requirement to maintain Navy airborne signals intelligence capabilities (sec. 122) .......................................................................................... 11 

Reports on service life extension of F/A–18 aircraft by the Department of the Navy (sec. 123) .................................................................. 12 

Inclusion of basic and functional design in assessments required 

prior to start of construction of first ship of a shipbuilding program 

(sec. 124) ................................................................................................. 13 

Multiyear procurement authority for F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and EA– 

18G fighter aircraft (sec. 125) ............................................................... 13 

Subtitle D—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 14 

System management plan and matrix for the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter Aircraft Program (sec. 141) ..................................................... 14 

Contracts for commercial imaging satellite capacities (sec. 142) .......... 16 

Quarterly reports on the use of Combat Mission Requirements funds 

(sec. 143) ................................................................................................. 17 

Integration of solid state laser systems into certain aircraft (sec. 

144) ......................................................................................................... 18 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 18 

Army ........................................................................................................... 18 

AH–64 fuselage manufacturing ........................................................ 18 

Guardrail common sensor .................................................................. 19 

Air warrior survival vest ensemble reset program .......................... 19 

Non-line of sight launch system ....................................................... 19 

Patriot upgrades ................................................................................. 19 

Paladin Integrated Management program ....................................... 19 

M2A1 quick change barrel kits ......................................................... 20 

120mm mortars, Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative reduction 20 

Efficiency and safety modifications to Heavy Expanded Mobility 

Ammunition Trailer ....................................................................... 20 

Navstar Global Positioning System .................................................. 20 

Tactical Local Area Network ............................................................. 20 

Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar ................................................. 21 

Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensor .......................... 21 

Forward Entry Devices ...................................................................... 21 

Line of Communication Bridge ......................................................... 22 

Fido explosives detection system ...................................................... 22 

Ground soldier system ....................................................................... 22 

Operator driving simulator ............................................................... 22 

Immersive group simulation virtual training system ..................... 23 

Combat skills marksmanship trainer ............................................... 23 

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle virtual trainers ............. 23 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

Combined arms collective training facility ....................................... 23 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 23 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 23 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 23 

F–18 multiyear procurement savings ............................................... 23 

F/A–18E/F ........................................................................................... 24 

MH–60R/S mission avionics .............................................................. 25 

AN/AAR–47 missile warning system computer processor upgrade ................................................................................................ 26 

Readiness support for Navy unfunded aviation spares and repair 

parts maintenance priorities ......................................................... 26 

Weapons industrial facilities ............................................................. 27 

Gun mount mods ................................................................................ 27 

Virginia-class tube test equipment ................................................... 27 

Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project .............................. 27 

Helicopter hangar door upgrades ...................................................... 28 

Range support vehicle ........................................................................ 28 

Man overboard indicators .................................................................. 28 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 29 

C–17 .................................................................................................... 29 

Airborne signals intelligence payload ............................................... 29 

C–135 modifications ........................................................................... 29 

E–8 modifications ............................................................................... 30 

Milsatcom terminals .......................................................................... 31 

Evolved expendable launch vehicle .................................................. 31 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System ................................................................................................... 31 

Joint threat emitter ........................................................................... 32 

Eastern processing facility ................................................................ 32 

Kodiak Launch Complex .................................................................... 32 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 32 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system ................................. 32 

Special Operations Force Deployable Nodes .................................... 33 

Enhanced Combat Optical Sight ....................................................... 33 

Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle ............................ 33 

Ground Mobility Vehicle modification kits ...................................... 33 

Special operations binocular/monocular visual augmentation devices ................................................................................................. 34 

Clip On Thermal Imager ................................................................... 34 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 34 

Assessment of helicopter support ............................................................. 34 

Combat search and rescue helicopter fleet .............................................. 34 

Development and fielding of Paladin Integrated Management program ........................................................................................................ 35 

F–16 upgrades ........................................................................................... 35 

40mm target practice rounds ................................................................... 36 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle ....................................... 36 

Rapid equipping soldier support equipment ........................................... 37 

Report on expeditionary amphibious warfare ship force structure ....... 38 

Surface ship construction and industrial base issues ............................ 40 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 43 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 43 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 43 

Limitation on use of funds for alternative propulsion system for 

the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211) .............................. 43 

Limitation on use of funds by Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency for operation of National Cyber Range (sec. 212) .................. 43 

Enhancement of Department of Defense support of science, mathematics, and engineering education (sec. 213) ...................................... 44 

Program for research, development, and deployment of advanced 

ground vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and components (sec. 

214) ......................................................................................................... 44 

Demonstrations and pilot projects on cybersecurity (sec. 215) .............. 45 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Matters .............................................................. 47 

Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) ....................... 47 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Matters—Continued 

Repeal of prohibition on certain contracts by the Missile Defense 

Agency with foreign entities (sec. 232) ................................................ 47 

Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 233) .................................. 48 

Acquisition accountability reports on the Ballistic Missile Defense 

System (sec. 234) ................................................................................... 48 

Independent review and assessment of the Ground-based Midcourse 

Defense system (sec. 235) ...................................................................... 49 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 49 

Army ........................................................................................................... 49 

Army basic research ........................................................................... 49 

Army materials technologies ............................................................. 50 

Unmanned aerial systems research and development .................... 50 

Advanced concepts and simulation ................................................... 51 

Ground vehicle research .................................................................... 51 

Robotic systems .................................................................................. 51 

Vehicle energy and power programs ................................................. 52 

Reactive armor technologies .............................................................. 52 

Advanced detection research ............................................................. 52 

Acoustic sensors systems ................................................................... 52 

Military engineering technology ....................................................... 53 

Medical and warfighter technologies ................................................ 53 

Thermal resistant fiber research ...................................................... 53 

Army advanced medical research and technologies ........................ 53 

Army weapon systems sustainment ................................................. 54 

Force projection technology ............................................................... 54 

Training and simulation systems ..................................................... 54 

Aircraft survivability systems ........................................................... 54 

Missile artillery advanced technology development ........................ 55 

Military engineering systems ............................................................ 55 

Adaptive robotic technology .............................................................. 55 

Advanced environmental controls ..................................................... 56 

Advanced imaging technologies ........................................................ 56 

Alternative power technology ............................................................ 56 

Hostile fire detection for helicopters ................................................. 56 

Non-line of sight launch system ....................................................... 56 

XM1125 smoke projectile ................................................................... 56 

Paladin Integrated Management program ....................................... 57 

Trojan Swarm ..................................................................................... 57 

Army test and evaluation programs ................................................. 57 

Enhanced Army energy testing ......................................................... 58 

Unserviceable ammunition demilitarization through chemical 

dissolution ....................................................................................... 58 

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades .............. 58 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 58 

University research initiatives .......................................................... 58 

Energetics research ............................................................................ 59 

Advanced energy research ................................................................. 59 

Navy force protection research .......................................................... 59 

Warfighter sustainment technologies ............................................... 59 

Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research ......................... 60 

Mobile intelligence and tracking systems ........................................ 60 

Formable textiles ................................................................................ 60 

Mobile repair capability ..................................................................... 61 

Rare earth alternatives ...................................................................... 61 

Single generator operations ............................................................... 61 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System ....................................... 62 

Hybrid heavy lift logistics vehicle ..................................................... 62 

Lighter-than-air research platform ................................................... 62 

Advanced actuators for submarines ................................................. 62 

Submarine shock mitigation ............................................................. 63 

Submarine payloads ........................................................................... 63 

Ship hydrodynamic test facilities improvement .............................. 64 

Common network interface system .................................................. 64 

Decision and energy reduction tool ................................................... 64 

Navy energy research ........................................................................ 65 

Flame retardant textile fabric ........................................................... 65 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy—Continued 

Optical interconnect ........................................................................... 65 

Air and missile defense radar ........................................................... 66 

TB–33 thinline towed array .............................................................. 66 

Advanced manufacturing for submarine bow domes ...................... 66 

Common command and control system module ............................... 67 

Submarine airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability .............................................................................. 67 

Submarine artificial intelligence-based combat system software 

module ............................................................................................. 67 

Submarine environment for evaluation and development .............. 68 

Submarine weapon acquisition and firing system ........................... 68 

SSGN weapon launcher technology insertion .................................. 68 

Automated fiber optic manufacturing capability ............................. 68 

Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle ........................................... 69 

Next-generation Phalanx ................................................................... 69 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 69 

Composite tissue transplantation for combat wound repair ........... 70 

Navy information technology programs ........................................... 70 

Navy manufacturing technology ....................................................... 70 

Strike study ........................................................................................ 71 

Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform .................................... 71 

Tomahawk cost reduction initiatives ................................................ 71 

Aircraft metal alloys .......................................................................... 71 

Aircraft windscreen laminates .......................................................... 72 

Tracking helicopter structural life .................................................... 72 

System for triaging key evidence ...................................................... 72 

Marine Corps personnel carrier data management system ............ 73 

Unique identification web-based tracking and accountability software ................................................................................................. 73 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 73 

Cyber research and training ............................................................. 73 

Air Force materials research ............................................................. 73 

Aerospace vehicle technologies .......................................................... 74 

Reconfigurable electronics and software .......................................... 74 

Seismic research program ................................................................. 74 

Space plasma research ....................................................................... 74 

Directed energy research ................................................................... 75 

Air Force advanced materials research ............................................ 75 

Advanced fuels and propulsion ......................................................... 75 

Air Force advanced propulsion systems ........................................... 75 

Carbon nanotubes .............................................................................. 76 

Collaboration gateway ....................................................................... 76 

Global Positioning System operating control segment .................... 76 

Space situational awareness ............................................................. 76 

Space protection program .................................................................. 76 

Next-generation military satellite communications ........................ 77 

Operationally Responsive Space ....................................................... 77 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite ...... 78 

Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking Initiative ............................... 79 

Space-based space surveillance system ............................................ 79 

Space-based Infrared System ............................................................ 79 

Third generation infrared surveillance ............................................ 80 

Air Force test and evaluation ............................................................ 80 

Space test program ............................................................................ 80 

B–2 ...................................................................................................... 81 

Cyber operations security institute .................................................. 81 

Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence .................... 81 

Malware research technology demonstration and validation ......... 82 

Milsatcom terminals .......................................................................... 82 

Environmental awareness for unmanned systems .......................... 82 

Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance Program of Record ..................... 83 

Global Positioning System augmentation ........................................ 84 

Global Positioning System operating control segment .................... 85 

Joint Space Operation Center System .............................................. 85 

Nuclear detonation detection system ............................................... 85 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 86 

Cognitive computing .......................................................................... 86 

Advanced chem-bio protective materials .......................................... 86 

Chemical and biological infrared detector ........................................ 86 

Department of Defense Research & Engineering Cyber security 

activities .......................................................................................... 86 

Weapons of mass destruction analysis reachback tool .................... 87 

Non-lethal weapons technology ......................................................... 87 

Combating terrorism technologies .................................................... 87 

Foreign language correlation and translation ................................. 87 

Reconnaissance and data exploitation system ................................. 87 

Plant-based vaccine development ..................................................... 88 

Defense Logistics Agency energy research ....................................... 88 

Printed circuit board industrial assessment .................................... 89 

U.S.-Israeli short-range ballistic missile defense ............................ 89 

Corrosion control research ................................................................. 89 

Chem-bio defense system development and demonstration ........... 90 

Defense Technical Information Center unjustified growth ............. 90 

Center for Intelligence and Security Studies ................................... 90 

Technology development for tactical unmanned aerial systems .... 90 

Wide-area aerial tactical situation awareness ................................. 91 

Center of excellence for geospatial science ....................................... 91 

Industrial Base Innovation Fund and supply chain ....................... 91 

Lithium ion battery safety research ................................................. 91 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution issues ...... 92 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 92 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ................................................................ 92 

Ballistic missile defense overview ............................................................ 94 

Coordination of the Minerva Program, the Human Social Cultural 

Behavior Modeling Program, and Strategic Multi-layer Assessment 

efforts ...................................................................................................... 97 

Defense Science Board study on cyber research and development ....... 97 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation personnel issues ............. 98 

High speed encryption .............................................................................. 98 

Integrated Sensor is Structure ................................................................. 98 

Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft prognostics .......................................... 99 

Multiple User Objective System ............................................................... 99 

Report on implementation of industry standardized hardware and 

software interfaces ................................................................................. 100 

Test Resources Management Center ....................................................... 100 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 101 

Explanation of tables ................................................................................ 101 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 101 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 101 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minnesota (sec. 311) ..................................................................................... 101 

Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated penalties 

in connection with Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine (sec. 312) . 101 

Requirements relating to Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry investigation of exposure to drinking water contamination 

at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (sec. 313) ....................................... 102 

Commission on Military Environmental Exposures (sec. 314) .............. 102 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 103 

Depot level maintenance and recapitalization parts supply (sec. 321) . 103 

Subtitle D—Energy Security ........................................................................... 104 

Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 331) .......................................... 104 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 104 

Additional limitation on indemnification of United States with respect to articles and services sold by working-capital funded Army 

industrial facilities and arsenals outside the Department of Defense (sec. 341) ....................................................................................... 104 

Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 342) ................. 104 

Four-year extension of authority to provide logistics support and 

services for weapons systems contractors (sec. 343) ........................... 105 

Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense property 

(sec. 344) ................................................................................................. 106 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued 

Commercial sale of small arms ammunition in excess of military 

requirements (sec. 345) ......................................................................... 107 

Modification of authorities relating to prioritization of funds for 

equipment readiness and strategic capability (sec. 346) .................... 107 

Repeal of requirement for reports on withdrawal or diversion of 

equipment from Reserve units for support of Reserve units being 

mobilized and other units (sec. 347) ..................................................... 108 

Revision to authorities relating to transportation of civilian passengers and commercial cargoes by Department of Defense when 

space unavailable on commercial lines (sec. 348) ............................... 108 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 108 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 108 

Readiness support for Navy unfunded aircraft maintenance priorities ............................................................................................... 108 

Readiness support for Navy unfunded ship maintenance priorities .................................................................................................. 109 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 110 

Air Force amended budget submission for C–130s ......................... 110 

Readiness support for Air Force unfunded weapons system 

sustainment priorities .................................................................... 110 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 111 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency .............................................. 111 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative ....................... 112 

Department of Defense support for program development and 

interagency training for rule of law operations ........................... 112 

Department of Defense Education Activity Operation and Maintenance funding .............................................................................. 113 

Unobligated Balances ................................................................................ 113 

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances ......................... 113 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 114 

Acoustic intelligence archive programs ............................................ 114 

Air Force food transformation initiative .......................................... 114 

Kirtland Air Force Base jet fuel spill ............................................... 115 

Littoral combat ship report ............................................................... 116 

Report and timeline for the Secretary of the Navy’s energy goals 116 

Requirements for standard ground combat camouflage uniforms . 116 

Reserve component pre-deployment equipment fielding and training .................................................................................................... 118 

Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting ............... 119 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 121 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 121 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 121 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 121 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 121 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves 

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 122 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 122 

Fiscal year 2011 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 122 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 123 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations ............................................... 123 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 123 

Subtitle D—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 123 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 431) ................................................................................................. 123 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 125 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 125 

Modification of promotion board procedures for joint qualified officers 

and officers with joint staff experience (sec. 501) ............................... 125 

Nondisclosure of information from discussions, deliberations, notes, 

and records of special selection boards (sec. 502) ............................... 125 

Administrative removal of officers from promotion list (sec. 503) ........ 125 

Technical revisions to definition of ‘‘joint matters’’ for purposes of 

joint officer management (sec. 504) ...................................................... 125 

Modification of authority for officers selected for appointment to general and flag officer grades to wear insignia of higher grade before 

appointment (sec. 505) .......................................................................... 126 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy—Continued 

Temporary authority to reduce minimum length of commissioned 

service required for voluntary retirement as an officer (sec. 506) ..... 126 

Age for appointment and mandatory retirement for health professions officers (sec. 507) .......................................................................... 126 

Authority for permanent professors at the United States Air Force 

Academy to hold command positions (sec. 508) .................................. 126 

Authority for appointment of warrant officers in the grade of W– 

1 by commission and standardization of warrant officer appointing 

authority (sec. 509) ................................................................................ 127 

Continuation of warrant officers on active duty to complete disciplinary action (sec. 510) ............................................................................. 127 

Authority to credit military graduates of the National Defense Intelligence College with completion of joint professional military education Phase I (sec. 511) ........................................................................ 127 

Expansion of authority relating to phase II of three-phase approach 

to joint professional military education (sec. 512) .............................. 127 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 127 

Repeal of requirement for new oath when officer transfers from active-duty list to reserve active-status list (sec. 521) ........................... 127 

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522) ........................................... 127 

Authority for assignment of Air Force Reserve military technicians 

(dual status) to positions outside Air Force Reserve unit program 

(sec. 523) ................................................................................................. 128 

Authority for temporary employment of non-dual status technicians 

to fill vacancies caused by mobilization of military technicians 

(dual status) (sec. 524) .......................................................................... 128 

Direct appointment of graduates of the United States Merchant Marine Academy into the National Guard (sec. 525) ............................... 128 

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 128 

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 531) ..................................................................................... 128 

Authority to waive maximum age limitation on admission to the 

service academies for certain enlisted members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (sec. 532) ... 128 

Active duty obligation for military academy graduates who participate in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (sec. 533) ................................................. 129 

Participation of Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and 

Financial Assistance Program recipients in active duty health profession loan repayment program (sec. 534) ......................................... 129 

Increase in number of private sector civilians authorized for admission to the National Defense University (sec. 535) ............................. 129 

Modification of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps minimum 

unit strength (sec. 536) ......................................................................... 129 

Increase in maximum age for prospective Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps financial assistance recipients (sec. 537) .................................. 129 

Modification of education loan repayment programs (sec. 538) ............ 130 

Enhancements of Department of Defense undergraduate nurse training program (sec. 539) ........................................................................... 130 

Authority for service commitment of reservists who accept fellowships, scholarships, or grants to be performed in the Selected Reserve (sec. 540) ....................................................................................... 130 

Health professions scholarship and financial assistance program for 

civilians (sec. 541) .................................................................................. 130 

Annual report on Department of Defense graduate medical education 

programs (sec. 542) ................................................................................ 131 

Subtitle D—Defense Dependents’ Education ................................................. 131 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 551) ..................................... 131 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 552) ..................... 131 

Authority to expand eligibility for enrollment in Department of Defense elementary and secondary schools to certain additional categories of dependents (sec. 553) ............................................................ 131 

Subtitle E—Leave and Related Matters ......................................................... 132 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued 

Subtitle E—Leave and Related Matters—Continued 

Leave of members of the reserve components of the armed forces 

(sec. 556) ................................................................................................. 132 

Non-chargeable rest and recuperation absence for certain members 

undergoing extended deployment to a combat zone (sec. 557) ........... 132 

Subtitle F—Military Justice Matters .............................................................. 132 

Reform of offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other sexual 

misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 561) .. 132 

Enhanced authority to punish contempt in military justice proceedings (sec. 562) .................................................................................. 132 

Authority to compel production of documentary evidence prior to 

trial in military justice cases (sec. 563) ............................................... 133 

Subtitle G—Awards and Decorations ............................................................. 133 

Cold War Service Medal (sec. 566) ........................................................... 133 

Authority for award of Bronze Star medal to members of military 

forces of friendly foreign nations (sec. 567) ......................................... 133 

Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-Service Cross 

to Shinyei Matayoshi for acts of valor during World War II (sec. 

568) ......................................................................................................... 133 

Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-Service Cross 

to Jay C. Copley for acts of valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 

569) ......................................................................................................... 133 

Subtitle H—Wounded Warrior Matters .......................................................... 133 

Disposition of members found to be fit for duty who are not suitable 

for deployment or worldwide assignment for medical reasons (sec. 

571) ......................................................................................................... 133 

Authority to expedite background investigations for hiring of wounded warriors and spouses by the Department of Defense and defense 

contractors (sec. 572) ............................................................................. 134 

Subtitle I—Military Family Readiness Matters ............................................ 134 

Additional members of Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (sec. 581) ......................................................................... 134 

Enhancement of community support for military families with special 

needs (sec. 582) ...................................................................................... 135 

Pilot program on scholarships for military dependent children with 

special education needs (sec. 583) ........................................................ 135 

Reports on child development centers and financial assistance for 

child care for members of the armed forces (sec. 584) ........................ 135 

Subtitle J—Other Matters ............................................................................... 136 

Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the armed 

forces (sec. 591) ...................................................................................... 136 

Recruitment and enlistment of charter school graduates in the armed 

forces (sec. 592) ...................................................................................... 136 

Updated terminology for the Army Medical Service Corps (sec. 593) .. 136 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 137 

Access to appropriate facilities, services, and support for military 

families with dependent children with special needs ......................... 137 

Access to the operational reserve ............................................................. 138 

Comptroller General review of educational fellowships and trainingwith-industry programs ......................................................................... 138 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 141 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 141 

Extension of authority for increase in basic allowance for housing 

for areas subject to major disaster or installations experiencing 

sudden increase in personnel (sec. 601) ............................................... 141 

Repeal of mandatory high-deployment allowance (sec. 602) ................. 141 

Ineligibility of certain Federal Government employees for income 

replacement payments (sec. 603) .......................................................... 141 

Report on costs incurred by members undergoing permanent change 

of duty station in excess of allowances (sec. 604) ............................... 142 

Report on basic allowance for housing for personnel assigned to sea 

duty (sec. 605) ........................................................................................ 142 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 142 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

Reserve forces (sec. 611) ........................................................................ 142 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 142 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays—Continued 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 143 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 143 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 143 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of referral 

bonuses (sec. 616) .................................................................................. 143 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 143 

Travel and transportation allowances for attendance of members and 

certain other persons at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 

events (sec. 621) ..................................................................................... 143 

Authority for payment of full replacement value for loss or damage 

to household goods in certain cases not covered by carrier liability 

(sec. 622) ................................................................................................. 144 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits ......................... 144 

Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers’ Group 

Life Insurance for members of the armed forces married to other 

members (sec. 631) ................................................................................ 144 

Conformity of special compensation for members with injuries or 

illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living with monthly personal caregiver stipend under Department of Veterans Affairs program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers (sec. 632) ... 144 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 145 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense use and management of incentive pays and bonuses ............................................... 145 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense report on 

housing standards and housing surveys used to determine basic 

allowance for housing ............................................................................ 145 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions ......................................................................... 147 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 147 

One-year extension of ceiling on charges for inpatient care under 

the TRICARE program (sec. 701) ......................................................... 147 

Extension of dependent coverage under the TRICARE program (sec. 

702) ......................................................................................................... 147 

Recognition of licensed mental health counselors as authorized providers under the TRICARE program (sec. 703) .................................. 147 

Plan for enhancement of quality, efficiencies, and savings in the 

military health care system (sec. 704) ................................................. 148 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 148 

Postdeployment health reassessments for purposes of the medical 

tracking system for members of the armed forces deployed overseas 

(sec. 711) ................................................................................................. 148 

Comprehensive policy on consistent automated neurological cognitive 

assessments of members of the armed forces before and after deployment (sec. 712) ................................................................................ 149 

Restoration of previous policy regarding restrictions on use of Department of Defense medical facilities (sec. 713) ....................................... 149 

Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for command-sponsored 

dependents of members assigned to remote locations outside the 

continental United States (sec. 714) .................................................... 149 

Clarification of authority for transfer of medical records from the 

Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 

715) ......................................................................................................... 150 

Clarification of licensure requirements applicable to military healthcare professionals who are members of the National Guard performing certain duty while in state status (sec. 716) ......................... 150 

Education and training on use of pharmaceuticals in rehabilitation 

programs for wounded warriors (sec. 717) ........................................... 150 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 151 

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the armed 

forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations 

required by the Department (sec. 731) ................................................ 151 

Repeal of report requirement on separations resulting from refusal 

to participate in anthrax vaccine immunization program (sec. 732) . 151 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 151 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury ................. 151 

Embedded behavioral health providers ................................................... 152 

Live tissue training ................................................................................... 153 

Report on the use of temporary military contingency payment adjustments for TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System 

rates ........................................................................................................ 154 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 157 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 157 

Improvements to structure and functioning of Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council (sec. 801) ................................................................. 157 

Cost estimates for program baselines and contract negotiations for 

major defense acquisition and major automated information system 

programs (sec. 802) ................................................................................ 157 

Management of manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 803) ..................................................................................... 158 

Extension of reporting requirements for developmental test and evaluation and systems engineering in the military departments and 

Defense Agencies (sec. 804) ................................................................... 159 

Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs under various acquisition-related requirements (sec. 805) ..... 159 

Technical and clarifying amendments to Weapon Systems Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2009 (sec. 806) ............................................................... 159 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 159 

New acquisition process for rapid fielding of capabilities in response 

to urgent operational needs (sec. 811) ................................................. 159 

Acquisition of major automated information system programs (sec. 

812) ......................................................................................................... 161 

Permanent authority for Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 

813) ......................................................................................................... 161 

Exportability features for Department of Defense systems (sec. 814) .. 161 

Reduction of supply chain risk in the acquisition of national security 

systems (sec. 815) .................................................................................. 161 

Department of Defense policy on acquisition and performance of sustainable products and services (sec. 816) ............................................. 162 

Repeal of requirement for certain procurements from firms in the 

small arms production industrial base (sec. 817) ................................ 162 

Prohibition on Department of Defense procurements from entities 

engaging in commercial activity in the energy sector of the Islamic 

Republic of Iran (sec. 818) ..................................................................... 163 

Subtitle C—Amendments Relating to General Contracting Authorities, 

Procedures, and Limitations ........................................................................ 163 

Pilot program on acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental 

items (sec. 831) ...................................................................................... 163 

Competition for production and sustainment and rights in technical 

data (sec. 832) ........................................................................................ 164 

Elimination of sunset date for protests of task and delivery order 

contracts (sec. 833) ................................................................................ 164 

Inclusion of option amounts in limitations on authority of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 834) ....................................................................... 164 

Enhancement of Department of Defense authority to respond to combat and safety emergencies through rapid acquisition and deployment of urgently needed supplies (sec. 835) ........................................ 164 

Subtitle D—Contractor Matters ...................................................................... 165 

Contractor business systems (sec. 841) ................................................... 165 

Oversight and accountability of contractors performing private security functions in areas of combat operations (sec. 842) ...................... 166 

Enhancements of authority of Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny 

award fees to companies found to jeopardize the health or safety 

of Government personnel (sec. 843) ..................................................... 166 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 167 

Extension of acquisition workforce personnel management demonstration program (sec. 851) ............................................................... 167 

Non-availability exception from Buy American requirements for procurement of hand or measuring tools (sec. 852) .................................. 167 

Five-year extension of Department of Defense Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program (sec. 853) ....................................................................................... 167 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 

—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters —Continued 

Extension and expansion of small business programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 854) .................................................................... 167 

Four-year extension of test program for negotiation of comprehensive 

small business subcontracting plans (sec. 855) ................................... 168 

Report on supply of fire resistant fiber for production of military 

uniforms (sec. 856) ................................................................................. 168 

Contractor logistics support of contingency operations (sec. 857) ......... 168 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 169 

Acquisition workforce strategic plan ....................................................... 169 

Configuration Steering Boards ................................................................. 170 

Contractor past performance information ............................................... 170 

Organizational conflicts of interest .......................................................... 171 

Planning and implementation for hiring civilian employees to replace 

contractor employees ............................................................................. 172 

Profit or fee for undefinitized contract actions ....................................... 173 

Strategy of addressing national security issues related to rare earth 

materials in the defense supply chain ................................................. 174 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 175 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 175 

Repeal of personnel limitations applicable to certain defense-wide 

organizations and revisions to limitation applicable to the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 901) .................................................. 175 

Reorganization of Office of the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

reduction required by law in number of Deputy Under Secretaries 

of Defense (sec. 902) .............................................................................. 175 

Revision of structure and functions of the Reserve Forces Policy 

Board (sec. 903) ...................................................................................... 176 

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 176 

Limitation on use of funds for costs of terminating contracts under 

the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System Program (sec. 911) .................................................................... 176 

Limitation on use of funds for purchasing Global Positioning System 

user equipment (sec. 912) ..................................................................... 176 

Plan for integration of space-based nuclear detection sensors (sec. 

913) ......................................................................................................... 177 

Preservation of the solid rocket motor industrial base (sec. 914) ......... 177 

Implementation plan to sustain solid rocket motor industrial base 

(sec. 915) ................................................................................................. 177 

Review and plan on sustainment of liquid rocket propulsion systems 

industrial base (sec. 916) ....................................................................... 178 

Subtitle C—Intelligence Matters ..................................................................... 178 

Permanent authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities as security for intelligence collection activities (sec. 

921) ......................................................................................................... 178 

Modification of attendees at proceedings of Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance Integration Council (sec. 922) ............................ 178 

Report on Department of Defense interservice management and coordination of remotely-piloted aircraft support of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (sec. 923) .............................................. 179 

Report on requirements fulfillment and personnel management relating to Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance provided by remotely-piloted aircraft (sec. 924) ....................................... 179 

Subtitle D—Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters .............. 179 

Continuous monitoring of Department of Defense information systems for cybersecurity (sec. 931) .......................................................... 179 

Strategy on computer software assurance (sec. 932) .............................. 179 

Strategy for acquisition and oversight of Department of Defense 

cyber warfare capabilities (sec. 933) .................................................... 180 

Report on the cyber warfare policy of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 934) ................................................................................................. 181 

Reports on Department of Defense progress in defending the Department and the defense industrial base from cyber events (sec. 935) .. 184 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 184 

Report on organizational structure and policy guidance of the Department of Defense regarding information operations (sec. 951) ............ 184 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management —Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued 

Report on the organizational structures of the geographic combatant 

command headquarters (sec. 952) ........................................................ 184 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 187 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 187 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 187 

Repeal of requirement for annual joint report from Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office on scoring of 

outlays in defense budget function (sec. 1002) .................................... 187 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 187 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain 

Navy mess operations (sec. 1011) ......................................................... 187 

Subtitle C—Counterdrug Matters ................................................................... 188 

Notice to Congress on military construction projects for facilities 

of foreign law enforcement agencies for counter-drug activities (sec. 

1021) ....................................................................................................... 188 

Extension and expansion of support for counter-drug activities of 

certain foreign governments (sec. 1022) .............................................. 188 

Extension and modification of joint task forces support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities (sec. 

1023) ....................................................................................................... 189 

Extension of numerical limitation on assignment of United States 

personnel in Colombia (sec. 1024) ........................................................ 189 

Reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign counterdrug activities (sec. 1025) ...................................................................... 189 

Subtitle D—Homeland Defense and Civil Support ........................................ 189 

Limitation on deactivation of existing Consequence Management Response Forces (sec. 1031) ...................................................................... 189 

Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic 

emergency assistance (sec. 1032) .......................................................... 190 

Sale of surplus military equipment to State and local homeland security and emergency management agencies (sec. 1033) ....................... 190 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 191 

National Guard support to secure the southern land border of the 

United States (sec. 1041) ...................................................................... 191 

Prohibition on infringing on the individual right to lawfully acquire, 

possess, own, carry, and otherwise use privately owned firearms, 

ammunition, and other weapons (sec. 1042) ....................................... 191 

Extension of limitation on use of funds for the transfer or release 

of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1043) .................................................................. 191 

Limitation on transfer of detainees from United States Naval Station 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain countries (sec. 1044) .................. 192 

Clarification of right to plead guilty in trial of capital offense by 

military commission (sec. 1045) ............................................................ 192 

Fiscal year 2011 administration and report on the Troops-to-Teachers 

Program (sec. 1046) ............................................................................... 192 

Military impacts of renewable energy development projects and other 

energy projects (sec. 1047) .................................................................... 192 

Public availability of Department of Defense reports required by 

law (sec. 1048) ........................................................................................ 192 

Development of criteria and methodology for determining the safety 

and security of nuclear weapons (sec. 1049) ........................................ 193 

Subtitle F—Reports .......................................................................................... 194 

Report on potential renewable energy projects on military installations (sec. 1061) ...................................................................................... 194 

Report on use of domestically-produced alternative fuels or technologies by vehicles of the Department of Defense (sec. 1062) .......... 194 

Report on role and utility of non-lethal weapons and technologies 

in counterinsurgency operations (sec. 1063) ........................................ 194 

Report on United States efforts to defend against threats posed by 

the anti-access and area-denial capabilities of certain nation-states 

(sec. 1064) ............................................................................................... 194 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 195 

Technical, conforming, and updating amendments (sec. 1081) ............. 195 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 195 

International crime and narcotics analytic tools .................................... 195 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

National Guard counterdrug programs ................................................... 195 

United States European Command’s counterdrug activities ................. 196 

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

Army Cooperative Arrangements ............................................................. 196 

Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department of Defense ........................................................................................................ 196 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate ........ 197 

Export Control Reform .............................................................................. 198 

Special operations counter proliferation capabilities ............................. 198 

Special operations integration with U.S. Embassy Country Teams ..... 199 

West Africa maritime security initiative ................................................. 199 

Title XI—Civilian Personnel Matters .................................................................... 201 

Modification of certain authorities relating to personnel demonstration laboratories (sec. 1101) .................................................................. 201 

Requirements for Department of Defense senior mentors (sec. 1102) .. 201 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian 

employees working overseas (sec. 1103) .............................................. 202 

Extension and modification of enhanced Department of Defense appointment and compensation authority for personnel for care and 

treatment of wounded and injured members of the armed forces 

(sec. 1104) ............................................................................................... 202 

Designation of Space and Missile Defense Technical Center of the 

U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command as a Department of Defense science and technology 

reinvention laboratory (sec. 1105) ........................................................ 202 

Treatment for certain employees paid saved or retained rates (sec. 

1106) ....................................................................................................... 203 

Rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees performing work aboard or dockside in support of the nuclear aircraft 

carrier home-ported in Japan (sec. 1107) ............................................ 203 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 203 

Action plan for employees on pay retention after conversion from 

National Security Personnel System to General Schedule ................ 203 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations ................................................... 205 

Subtitle A—Training and Assistance .............................................................. 205 

Addition of allied government agencies to enhanced logistics interoperability authority (sec. 1201) ........................................................... 205 

Expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend certain military equipment to certain 

foreign forces for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1202) 205 

Authority to build the capacity of Yemen Ministry of Interior 

Counterterrorism forces (sec. 1203) ..................................................... 206 

Authority to pay personnel expenses in connection with African cooperation (sec. 1204) .............................................................................. 207 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan .............. 207 

One-year extension and modification of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program and related authorities (sec. 1211) ........................... 207 

Increase in temporary limitation on amount for building capacity 

of foreign military forces to participate in or support military and 

stability operations (sec. 1212) ............................................................. 208 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations 

for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 

1213) ....................................................................................................... 208 

Extension and modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 

1214) ....................................................................................................... 209 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1215) ............................................................................. 209 

Sense of Congress and reports on training of Afghan National Police 

(sec. 1216) ............................................................................................... 210 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 210 

One-year extension of report on progress toward security and stability in Afghanistan (sec. 1231) ........................................................... 210 

Two-year extension of United States plan for sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces (sec. 1232) ............................................ 211 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations—Continued 

Subtitle C—Reports—Continued 

Report on Department of Defense support for coalition operations 

(sec. 1233) ............................................................................................... 211 

Report on United States engagement with the Islamic Republic of 

Iran (sec. 1234) ...................................................................................... 212 

Defense Policy Board report on Department of Defense strategy to 

counter violent extremism outside the United States (sec. 1235) ..... 212 

Report on Cuba (sec. 1236) ....................................................................... 213 

Report on Venezuela (sec. 1237) .............................................................. 213 

Report on the disarmament of the Lord’s Resistance Army (sec. 

1238) ....................................................................................................... 214 

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

Comptroller General Report on the Islamic Republic of Iran ................ 214 

Comptroller General Review of U.S. Assistance to the Government 

of the Republic of Yemen ...................................................................... 215 

Operation Unified Response and Joint Task Force-Haiti ...................... 216 

Report on personnel contributions by the United States Armed Forces 

to international peacekeeping missions ............................................... 216 

U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command and operational 

control ..................................................................................................... 217 

Title XIII—Cooperative Threat Reduction ............................................................ 221 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 221 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 221 

Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence 

in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 1303) .............. 221 

Plan for nonproliferation, proliferation prevention, and threat reduction activities with the People’s Republic of China (sec. 1304) .......... 222 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 223 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 223 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Matters ............................................ 223 

Consolidation and reorganization of statutory authority for destruction of United States stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions (sec. 1411) ...................................................................................... 223 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 224 

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund 

for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois (sec. 

1421) ....................................................................................................... 224 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 224 

Defense Coalition Support Fund .............................................................. 224 

Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding .............. 224 

Department of Defense Inspector General, second year growth plan ... 224 

Title XV—Overseas Contingency Operations ........................................................ 227 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 227 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 227 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 227 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 227 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 227 

Availability of amounts in Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer 

Fund solely for detainee operations at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1531) ..................................................... 227 

Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security Forces 

Fund (sec. 1532) ..................................................................................... 227 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533) ..................................................... 229 

Projects of Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan and report on economic strategy for Afghanistan (sec. 

1534) ....................................................................................................... 229 

Report on management controls and oversight mechanisms for the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (sec. 1535) . 230 

Sense of Congress on support for integrated civilian-military training 

for civilian personnel deploying to Afghanistan (sec. 1536) ............... 231 

Budget Items ............................................................................................. 231 

Base Expeditionary Targeting and Surveillance System-Combined ..... 231 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 231 

Joint Strike Fighter .................................................................................. 232 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund ................................... 233 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

Title XV—Overseas Contingency Operations—Continued 

Subtitle C—Other Matters—Continued 

Wide-area airborne surveillance exploitation ......................................... 233 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program ......................................... 234 

Iraq Security Forces Fund ........................................................................ 234 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund .................................. 235 

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 237 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 237 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 237 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 237 

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 239 

Summary .................................................................................................... 239 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 240 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 240 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 240 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 240 

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

2105) ....................................................................................................... 240 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 project 

(sec. 2106) ............................................................................................... 240 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 

(sec. 2107) ............................................................................................... 241 

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 243 

Summary .................................................................................................... 243 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 243 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 243 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 244 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 244 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008 project (sec. 

2205) ....................................................................................................... 244 

Technical amendment to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 

(sec. 2206) ............................................................................................... 244 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 244 

Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam ................. 244 

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 249 

Summary .................................................................................................... 249 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 249 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 249 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 249 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 249 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2007 project (sec. 

2305) ....................................................................................................... 250 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 251 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 251 

Summary .................................................................................................... 251 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 251 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) ................................................. 252 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 252 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 

(sec. 2404) ............................................................................................... 252 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 252 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) ............................................................... 252 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project 

(sec. 2412) ............................................................................................... 252 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 252 

Design standards for schools of the Department of Defense Education 

Activity ................................................................................................... 252 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 255 

Summary .................................................................................................... 255 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 255 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program—Continued 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 255 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 257 

Summary .................................................................................................... 257 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 257 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 257 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 257 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 257 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 257 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 258 

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

2607) ....................................................................................................... 258 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 258 

Report on National Guard readiness centers .......................................... 258 

Title XXVII—Base Closure and Realignment Activities ...................................... 261 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 261 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 (sec. 2701) ........................................................................... 261 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through 

Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2702) ........ 261 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 (sec. 2703) ........................................................................... 261 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Matters ........................................ 263 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 263 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects outside the United States 

(sec. 2801) ............................................................................................... 263 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration Limitation on 

enhanced use leases of non-excess property (sec. 2811) ............................ 263 

Subtitle C—Energy Security ........................................................................... 264 

Enhancement of energy security activities of the Department of Defense (sec. 2821) ..................................................................................... 264 

Permanent authority to accept and use landing fees charged to use 

of domestic airfields by civil aircraft (sec. 2822) ................................. 265 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 265 

Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky (sec. 2831) .............................. 265 

Land Conveyances, Naval Support Activity (West Bank), New Orleans, Louisiana (sec. 2832) ..................................................................... 265 

Authority for use of unobligated funds for construction of a replacement fire station at Fort Belvoir, Virginia (sec. 2833) ....................... 265 

Subtitle E—Reports .......................................................................................... 265 

Limitation on availability of funds pending reports regarding construction of a new outlying landing field (OLF) in North Carolina 

and Virginia (sec. 2841) ......................................................................... 265 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 266 

Further enhancements to Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance Program (sec. 2851) ................................................................. 266 

Lease of Airborne and Special Operations Museum facility (sec. 

2852) ....................................................................................................... 266 

Sense of the Senate on the proposed extension of the Alaska Railroad 

corridor across Federal land in Alaska (sec. 2853) ............................. 266 

Sense of Congress on military housing for the Air Force (sec. 2854) .... 266 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 266 

Application of force protection and anti-terrorism standards to gates 

and entry points on military installations ........................................... 266 

Report on U.S. Special Operations Command military construction 

requirements .......................................................................................... 267 

Title XXIX—Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction Authorizations .................................................................................................................. 269 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

Title XXIX—Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction Authorizations—Continued 

Summary .................................................................................................... 269 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 269 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 269 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 271 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 271 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 271 

Overview .................................................................................................... 271 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 272 

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 272 

Directed stockpile work ..................................................................... 272 

Campaigns .......................................................................................... 272 

Readiness in the technical base ........................................................ 273 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs ................................... 274 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development ........ 275 

Nonproliferation and international security .................................... 275 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation .......... 275 

Fissile materials disposition .............................................................. 275 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................... 276 

Plutonium reactor shutdown program ............................................. 277 

Secure transportation asset ............................................................... 277 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response .................................... 277 

Facilities and infrastructure ............................................................. 277 

Site stewardship ................................................................................. 278 

Safeguards and security .................................................................... 278 

Naval reactors .................................................................................... 278 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 278 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 278 

Waste Treatment Plant ..................................................................... 278 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 279 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 280 

Assessment of adequacy of budget requests with respect to maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3111) ..................................... 280 

Biennial plan on modernization and refurbishment of the nuclear 

security complex (sec. 3112) .................................................................. 280 

Future-years defense environmental management plan (sec. 3113) ..... 280 

Notification of cost overruns for certain Department of Energy 

projects (sec. 3114) ................................................................................. 280 

Authority to purchase or lease aircraft necessary to support the 

mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 

3115) ....................................................................................................... 281 

Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of excellence 

in countries outside of the former Soviet Union (sec. 3116) .............. 281 

Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy for appointment of 

certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 3117) .. 282 

Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy to enter into transactions to carry out certain research projects (sec. 3118) ................... 282 

Extension of deadline for cooperation with the Russian Federation 

with respect to development of nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting program (sec. 3119) ............................................. 282 

Repeal of sunset provision for modification of minor construction 

threshold for plant projects (sec. 3120) ................................................ 282 

Extension of deadline for transfer of parcels of land to be conveyed 

to Los Alamos County, New Mexico, and held in trust for the 

pueblo of San Ildefonso (sec. 3121) ....................................................... 283 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 283 

Department of Energy energy parks program (sec. 3131) ..................... 283 

Reclassification of certain appropriations for the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (sec. 3132) ..................................................... 283 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 283 

Department of Energy National Laboratories ........................................ 283 

Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System ....................... 284 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 285 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 285 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

XX 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board—Continued 

Title XXXIII—Maritime Administration ................................................. 287 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3301) ....................................................... 287 

Division D—Funding Tables ................................................................................... 289 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 289 

Title XLI—Procurement .......................................................................................... 291 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 291 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 291 

Title XLII—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ................................. 293 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 293 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 293 

Title XLIII—Operation and Maintenance ............................................................. 295 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 295 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 295 

Title XLIV—Other Authorizations ......................................................................... 297 

Other authorizations (sec. 4401) .............................................................. 297 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) . 297 

Title XLV—Military Construction .......................................................................... 299 

Military construction (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 299 

2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011 project 

listing (sec. 4502) ................................................................................... 299 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4503) . 299 

Title XVI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ......................... 301 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4601) ............. 301 

Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................ 301 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 301 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 301 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 304 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 304 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 304 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate ........ 305 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 343 

Additional views of Mr. McCain ............................................................... 343 

Deployment of National Guard to the Southern Border of the 

United States Amendment ............................................................ 343 

Abortion Amendment ......................................................................... 343 

Iraqi Security Forces Fund ................................................................ 343 

Transparency and Earmarks ............................................................ 344 

Additional views of Mr. Chambliss .......................................................... 346 

Additional views of Mr. Thune ................................................................. 348 

Next Generation Bomber ................................................................... 348 

Air-Sea Battle Concept ...................................................................... 349 

Abortion Amendment ......................................................................... 349 

Additional views of Messrs. McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 

Graham, Thune, Wicker, Lemieux, Brown, Burr, and Vitter ............ 350 

Repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ Amendment ................................ 350 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 414 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–201 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 4, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of May 28 (legislative day, May 

26, 2010) 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3454] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2011; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2011; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2011. 

Committee overview 

The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed 

conflict for more than 8 years—8 and one half years in Afghanistan 

and 7 years in Iraq. Whether engaged in combat in Afghanistan or 

Iraq, delivering humanitarian assistance to victims of an earthquake in Haiti, training foreign national forces to combat terrorism 

in their own countries, or assisting State and federal agencies responding to emergencies here at home, the men and women of our 

Armed Forces, both active and reserve, are serving honorably and 

courageously to promote and defend our Nation’s interests. They do 

so often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their families. 

After more than 8 years of war, our military, particularly our 

ground forces, are severely stressed and the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions 

remains low. 

The administration has honed its counterinsurgency strategy in 

Afghanistan, put in place a new military leadership team, deployed 

additional U.S. forces, and stressed a more regional approach, including in particular a greater emphasis on Pakistan. The redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq continues. 

To date in this Second Session of the 111th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services has conducted 38 hearings and formal 

briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011, the 

ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and related defense matters. 

In order to provide a framework for the consideration of these 

matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines to guide its work 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

These guidelines are: 

1. Improve the quality of life of the men and women of the allvolunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and 

their families through fair pay, policies and benefits, including first 

rate health care, and address the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families. 

2. Provide our service men and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection), and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. 

3. Enhance the capability of the armed forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan, 

as appropriate. 

4. Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials by 

strengthening and accelerating nonproliferation programs, maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, the proliferation of weapons 

of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 

6. Enhance the capability of the security forces of allied and 

friendly nations to defeat al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other violent 

extremist organizations. 

7. Seek to reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action 

aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

8. Terminate troubled programs and activities, improve efficiencies, and apply the savings to higher-priority programs. 

9. Emphasize the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels and 

seek greater energy security and independence and pursue technological advances in traditional and alternative energy storage, 

power systems, renewable energy production, and more energy efficient ground, air, and naval systems. 

10. Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

Explanation of funding summary 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2011 was $725.9 billion and was 

in three parts: • $548.9 billion for the base budget of the Department of Defense, • $159.3 billion for overseas contingency operations, which 

funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and • $17.7 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy and for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board. 

The bill authorizes $725.7 billion for National Defense programs. The bill authorizes $1.4 billion more than was requested for the 

base budget of the Department of Defense and $1.7 billion less 

than was requested for overseas contingency operations. The bill 

authorizes the requested level of funding for national security programs in the Department of Energy and an increase of $5.0 million 

for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The administration’s budget for national defense also included 

discretionary programs outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, discretionary programs that do not require further authorizations, mandatory programs that are part of 

current law, and a mandatory proposal dealing with concurrent receipt. When these programs are added to the administration’s 

budget the total request for national defense totaled $739.3 billion 

as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. 

The following two tables summarize the direct authorizations 

and the equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2011 defense programs. The first table summarizes committee action on 

the authorizations within the jurisdiction of this committee. It includes the authorization for spending from the trust fund of the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home which is outside the national defense budget function. The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by adding funding for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

items that are not within the jurisdiction of this committee or that 

do not require an annual authorization. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2011 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations 

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

Title I: PROCUREMENT 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ........................................................... 5,976,867 –15,700 5,961,167 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................ 1,887,437 –216,974 1,670,463 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ................................ 1,723,561 –99,277 1,624,284 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ............................................... 1,979,414 –28,600 1,950,814 

Other Procurement, Army .............................................................. 9,765,808 164,182 9,929,990 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................ 215,868 –215,868 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ........................................................... 18,508,613 622,548 19,131,161 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 3,359,794 41,000 3,400,794 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ..................... 817,991 817,991 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy .................................................. 15,724,520 15,724,520 

Other Procurement, Navy ............................................................... 6,450,208 21,600 6,471,808 

Procurement, Marine Corps ........................................................... 1,344,044 1,344,044 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ..................................................... 15,366,508 –26,200 15,340,308 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ...................................................... 5,463,272 7,692 5,470,964 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................... 667,420 667,420 

Other Procurement, Air Force ........................................................ 17,845,380 31,000 17,876,380 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ........................................................... 4,280,368 88,400 4,368,768 

Subtotal, PROCUREMENT .............................................................. 111,377,073 373,803 111,750,876 

Title II: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION 

RDT&E, Army ................................................................................. 10,333,392 240,153 10,573,545 

RDT&E, Navy .................................................................................. 17,693,496 136,289 17,829,785 

RDT&E, Air Force ........................................................................... 27,247,302 82,500 27,329,802 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide .................................................................... 20,661,600 208,900 20,870,500 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ....................................... 194,910 194,910 

Subtotal, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION ......... 76,130,700 667,842 76,798,542 

Title III: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................................ 33,971,965 33,971,965 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................. 2,879,077 2,879,077 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ...................... 6,572,704 6,572,704 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................................ 38,134,308 109,000 38,243,308 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps .................................. 5,590,340 5,590,340 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve .................................. 1,367,764 1,367,764 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .................... 285,234 285,234 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ......................................... 36,844,512 133,312 36,977,824 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................ 3,301,035 102,792 3,403,827 

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ......................... 5,941,143 101,096 6,042,239 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide .................................. 30,583,896 –101,000 30,482,896 

US Court Of Appeals For The Armed Forces, Defense .................. 14,068 14,068 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster And Civic Aid .......................... 108,032 108,032 

Cooperative Threat Reduction ....................................................... 522,512 522,512 

Acquisition Development Workforce Fund ..................................... 217,561 217,561 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2011 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Environmental Restoration, Army .................................................. 444,581 444,581 

Environmental Restoration, Navy .................................................. 304,867 304,867 

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ............................................ 502,653 502,653 

Environmental Restoration, Defense ............................................. 10,744 10,744 

Environmental Restoration Formerly Used Sites ........................... 276,546 276,546 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ......................... 5,000 5,000 

Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................... 167,878,542 345,200 168,223,742 

Title IV: MILITARY PERSONNEL ..................................................... 138,540,700 138,540,700 

Title XIV: OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Defense Working Capital Funds .................................................... 160,965 160,965 

Defense Commissary Agency ......................................................... 1,273,571 1,273,571 

National Defense Sealift Fund ...................................................... 934,866 934,866 

Defense Coalition Support Fund ................................................... 10,000 –10,000 

Office of the Inspector General ..................................................... 283,354 33,800 317,154 

Defense Health Program ............................................................... 30,935,111 22,000 30,957,111 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................. 1,131,351 22,500 1,153,851 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense .................... 1,467,307 1,467,307 

Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................... 36,196,525 68,300 36,264,825 

Subtotal, Division A, Base Budget ............................................... 530,123,540 1,455,145 531,578,685 

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

Title XV—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

PROCUREMENT, OCO 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ........................................................... 1,373,803 1,373,803 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................ 343,828 343,828 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ................................ 687,500 687,500 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ............................................... 702,591 –50,100 652,491 

Other Procurement, Army .............................................................. 5,827,274 –41,000 5,786,274 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................ 3,250,000 215,868 3,465,868 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ........................................................... 420,358 420,358 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ......................................................... 93,425 93,425 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ..................... 565,084 565,084 

Other Procurement, Navy ............................................................... 480,735 480,735 

Procurement, Marine Corps ........................................................... 1,778,243 1,778,243 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ..................................................... 1,362,420 –204,900 1,157,520 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ...................................................... 56,621 56,621 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................... 292,959 292,959 

Other Procurement, Air Force ........................................................ 3,087,481 3,087,481 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ........................................................... 874,546 874,546 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Veh Fund .............................. 3,415,000 3,415,000 

Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO ..................................................... 24,611,868 –80,132 24,531,736 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION, OCO 

RDT&E, Army ................................................................................. 150,906 150,906 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2011 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

RDT&E, Navy .................................................................................. 60,401 60,401 

RDT&E, Air Force ........................................................................... 266,241 266,241 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide .................................................................... 157,240 25,500 182,740 

Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO .................................................................. 634,788 25,500 660,288 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO 

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................................ 62,602,618 –400,000 62,202,618 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................. 286,950 286,950 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ...................... 544,349 544,349 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund ................................................ 11,619,283 11,619,283 

Iraq Security Forces Fund ............................................................. 2,000,000 –1,000,000 1,000,000 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................................ 8,946,634 8,946,634 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps .................................. 4,136,522 4,136,522 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve .................................. 93,559 93,559 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .................... 29,685 29,685 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ......................................... 13,487,283 13,487,283 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................ 129,607 129,607 

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ......................... 350,823 350,823 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide .................................. 9,426,358 9,426,358 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ......................... 1,551,781 –245,000 1,306,781 

Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO ........................... 115,205,452 –1,645,000 113,560,452 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO .......................................................... 15,275,502 15,275,502 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO 

Defense Working Capital Funds .................................................... 485,384 485,384 

Office of the Inspector General ..................................................... 10,529 10,529 

Defense Health Program ............................................................... 1,398,092 1,398,092 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................. 457,110 457,110 

Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO ...................................... 2,351,115 2,351,115 

Subtotal, Division A, OCO Budget ................................................ 158,078,725 –1,699,632 156,379,093 

Total, Division A ............................................................................ 688,202,265 –244,487 687,957,778 

Division B: Military Construction Authorizations 

Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI–XXVI) 

Titles XXI–XXVI: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military Construction, Army ........................................................... 4,078,798 –282,000 3,796,798 

Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ............................. 3,879,104 –168,684 3,710,420 

Military Construction, Air Force ..................................................... 1,311,385 71,740 1,383,125 

Military Construction, Defense-Wide ............................................. 3,118,062 84,582 3,202,644 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction ........................................ 124,971 124,971 

Security Investment Program ........................................................ 258,884 258,884 

Military Construction, Army National Guard ................................. 873,664 89,366 963,030 

Military Construction, Army Reserve ............................................. 318,175 33,500 351,675 

Military Construction, Navy Reserve ............................................. 61,557 61,557 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2011 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Military Construction, Air National Guard ..................................... 176,986 159,100 336,086 

Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ....................................... 7,832 7,832 

Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 14,209,418 –12,396 14,197,022 

Titles XXI–XXVI: FAMILY HOUSING 

Family Housing Construction, Army .............................................. 92,369 92,369 

Family Housing O&M, Army ........................................................... 518,140 518,140 

Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ................ 186,444 186,444 

Family Housing O&M, Navy and Marine Corps ............................. 366,346 366,346 

Family Housing Construction, Air Force ........................................ 78,025 78,025 

Family Housing O&M, Air Force .................................................... 513,792 513,792 

Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide ............................................. 50,464 50,464 

Homeowners Assistance Fund ....................................................... 16,515 16,515 

Family Housing Improvement Fund ............................................... 1,096 1,096 

Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING ........................................................... 1,823,191 1,823,191 

Title XXXVII: BRAC 

Defense Base Closure Account 1990 ............................................ 360,474 360,474 

Defense Base Closure Account 2005 ............................................ 2,354,285 2,354,285 

Subtotal, BRAC .............................................................................. 2,714,759 2,714,759 

Subtotal, Division B, Base Budget .............................................. 18,747,368 –12,396 18,734,972 

Division B: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget (Title XXIX) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, OCO 

Military Construction, Army ........................................................... 929,996 98,180 1,028,176 

Military Construction, Air Force ..................................................... 280,506 –86,740 193,766 

Military Construction, Defense-Wide ............................................. 46,500 46,500 

Subtotal, Division B, OCO Budget ................................................ 1,257,002 11,440 1,268,442 

Total, Division B ........................................................................... 20,004,370 –956 20,003,414 

SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B ................................ 548,870,908 1,442,749 550,313,657 

SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B ................................. 159,335,727 –1,688,192 157,647,535 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) ..................................... 708,206,635 –245,443 707,961,192 

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

Division C (Titles XXXI and XXXII) 

Department of Energy Authorization (Title XXXI) 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ................................. 6,188 –6,188 

Title XXXI: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Weapons Activities ........................................................................ 7,008,835 6,188 7,015,023 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................. 2,687,167 2,687,167 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011— 

Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2011 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Naval Reactors .............................................................................. 1,070,486 1,070,486 

Office of the Administrator ........................................................... 448,267 448,267 

Subtotal, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ........ 11,214,755 6,188 11,220,943 

Title XXXI: ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................... 5,588,039 5,588,039 

Other Defense Activities ................................................................ 878,209 878,209 

Subtotal, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ..... 6,466,248 6,466,248 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ................................................. 17,687,191 17,687,191 

Title XXXII: DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ....................................... 28,640 5,000 33,640 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............... 28,640 5,000 33,640 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) .................. 17,715,831 5,000 17,720,831 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) .................................... 725,922,466 –240,443 725,682,023 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

Title IV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ........... 71,200 71,200 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

Title X—General Transfer Authority (non-add) ............................ [5,000,000] [5,000,000] 

Title XV—Special Transfer Authority (non-add) ........................... [4,000,000] [4,000,000] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2011 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 

SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B ...................................... 548,870,908 1,442,749 550,313,657 

SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B ....................................... 159,335,727 –1,688,192 157,647,535 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) ............................................ 708,206,635 –245,443 707,961,192 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) ......................... 17,715,831 5,000 17,720,831 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE .................................................... 725,922,466 –240,443 725,682,023 

Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services 

Committee or Do Not Require Additional Authorization 

Defense Production Act Purchases ..................................................... 28,746 28,746 

Indefinite Account: National Science Center, Army ............................ 25 25 

Indefinte Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property ............................ 10,317 10,317 

Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property ................................ 8,884 8,884 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 .................................................. 47,972 47,972 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program .............................. 130,000 130,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 .................................................. 130,000 130,000 

Other Discretionary Programs ............................................................. 7,017,000 7,017,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 .................................................. 7,017,000 7,017,000 

Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050) ............................... 7,194,972 7,194,972 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary 

Department of Defense--Military (051) ............................................... 708,254,607 –245,443 708,009,164 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .............................................. 17,845,831 5,000 17,850,831 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ........................................................ 7,017,000 7,017,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary .................... 733,117,438 –240,443 732,876,995 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement 

Fund ................................................................................................ 4,754,000 4,754,000 

Concurrent receipt policy proposal ..................................................... 410,000 –410,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory ........................................ 1,240,000 1,240,000 

Offsetting receipts ............................................................................... –1,751,000 –1,751,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051 .................................................. 4,653,000 –410,000 4,243,000 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and 

other ................................................................................................ 1,158,000 1,158,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053 .................................................. 1,158,000 1,158,000 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund .................................... 44,000 44,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other ........................................ 292,000 292,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054 .................................................. 336,000 336,000 

Total National Defense Mandatory (050) .......................................... 6,147,000 –410,000 5,737,000 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory 

Department of Defense--Military (051) ............................................... 712,907,607 –655,443 712,252,164 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) .............................................. 19,003,831 5,000 19,008,831 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ........................................................ 7,353,000 7,353,000 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and 

Mandatory ....................................................................................... 739,264,438 –650,443 738,613,995 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(11) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Army Programs 

Airborne common sensor and enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system (sec. 111) 

The budget request included $88.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army for the purchase of three low rate initial production 

Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMARSS) aircraft. The committee understands, however, that 

the EMARSS program has an ambitious and risky development 

schedule that has already suffered schedule delays that makes the 

obligation of these funds in fiscal year 2011 unlikely. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the obligation 

of any funds for the Airborne Common Sensor, EMARSS, until the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 

Technology certifies to the congressional defense committees that 

the system has successfully completed its limited user tests and 

demonstrates the technical performance necessary for successful 

Milestone C approval. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Multiyear funding for detail design and construction of LHA 

replacement ship designated LHA–7 (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Navy to execute the contract for LHA–7 over fiscal years 2011 and 

2012, subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose 

in budgets after 2011. 

Requirement to maintain Navy airborne signals intelligence 

capabilities (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

retirement of the EP–3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II fleet or the Special Projects Aircraft (SPA) until 

the Navy has readied replacements that are equivalent or better in 

terms of meeting the requirements of the combatant commanders. 

The provision also requires that the two systems be maintained 

and upgraded to remain current against evolving threats and operational requirements. 

The committee believes that this provision is necessary to ensure 

that the Navy sustains adequate signals intelligence (SIGINT) and 

multi-intelligence collection support for the Marine Corps, special 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

forces, ground component commanders, and naval fleet commanders, and joint combatant commands. 

The Navy terminated the EP–X program due to escalating costs 

and a desire to pursue other solutions. The committee does not 

quarrel with this decision, but is concerned that the Navy shifted 

the EP–X outyear funds to other priorities and had no concrete 

plans for the future. The committee is concerned that the Navy’s 

airborne intelligence collection capabilities would be seriously degraded as the current systems deteriorate well before new capabilities come on line. 

The EP–3E and SPA fleets must be maintained and kept current 

while the Navy firms up and executes plans to acquire SIGINT on 

the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial system 

(UAS), and develops and produces the ship-based medium-endurance UAS. 

The committee notes that the Navy operates multiple Reaper 

UAS under the Saber Focus program that have capable, and in 

some respects, unique sensors. These assets have been deployed 

both as a demonstration and to support operations overseas. The 

Navy’s leadership is considering whether to cease operating these 

aircraft and transfer them to the Air Force. The committee has concerns about this proposed transfer. The committee’s view is that 

the Navy’s long-term plan to shift a much larger portion of its intelligence collection capabilities to UAS in the future could benefit 

from the continued availability of Reaper platforms to test sensors 

and to develop Navy UAS operational concepts. These Saber Focus 

assets could complement the SPA fleet if operated and managed together. The committee is also concerned that the transfer of these 

assets to the Air Force could result in the loss of, or a gap in, support for deployed forces. 

Reports on service life extension of F/A–18 aircraft by the 

Department of the Navy (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to conduct a business case analysis comparing two options: (1) conducting a service life extension program 

(SLEP) for legacy F/A–18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours; and (2) buying new F/A–18E/F aircraft. The provision also would specify the 

elements of that analysis. The Secretary would be required to complete that analysis and submit it to the congressional defense committees before he could begin such a SLEP effort. 

The Department of the Navy has testified that, among the alternatives available to the Department for managing the shortfall it 

has projected in tactical aircraft inventory, one is to conduct a 

SLEP for some portion of the F/A–18 fleet that extends their service life beyond 8,600 flying hours. However, several objective reports have suggested that extending the service life of legacy F/A– 

18A–D aircraft to 10,000 hours may require significant depot work 

to rebuild parts of each aircraft. Such a situation raises uncertainty 

about the costs of such a program. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

operational risks and effects of any decision to reduce the size of 

F/A–18 squadrons before the Secretary takes any such action. The 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

provision would also specify topics or issues that this report should 

address. The committee understands that the Department of the 

Navy is planning to ask for funding to extend the service life of F/ 

A–18 aircraft in fiscal year 2012 and will start reducing the size 

of its land-based F/A–18 squadrons in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the reports at the time the President submits his fiscal year 2012 budget 

proposal to Congress. 

One of the ways that the Navy has decided it could deal with the 

shortfall of strike fighter aircraft would be to reduce the squadron 

size for expeditionary F/A–18 squadrons from 12 to 10 planes, beginning in fiscal year 2011. The committee understands that the 

Navy also intends to reduce the size of F/A–18 training squadrons. 

The committee, however, has seen no evidence that the Department of the Navy has conducted an operational risk assessment 

and analysis of the effects of these reductions. The committee believes that a final decision on reducing operational or training 

squadrons should be made only after the Department has completed those analyses and has reported on them to the congressional defense committees. 

Inclusion of basic and functional design in assessments required prior to start of construction of first ship of a 

shipbuilding program (sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to tighten the requirements under 

which the Secretary of the Navy is required to certify that a new 

shipbuilding program has achieved sufficient design maturity at 

the time the Navy begins construction on the first ship of any 

major shipbuilding program. 

The Government Accountability Office, in its May 2009 report, 

‘‘Best Practices: High Levels of Knowledge at Key Points Differentiate Commercial Shipbuilding from Navy Shipbuilding (GAO–09– 

322),’’ identified key steps that leading commercial shipbuilders 

and ship buyers follow to ensure their vessels deliver on-time, within planned costs, and with a high degree of innovation. 

One critical step in this process is achieving design stability before start of fabrication. Leading commercial firms assess a ship design as stable once all basic and functional design activities have 

been completed (usually in the form of a complete 3D product 

model). 

Section 124 as currently written does not specifically require that 

the assessment of design maturity directly address the completeness of the 3D modeling or completion of the activities that make 

up basic and functional design. This provision would add that requirement. 

Multiyear procurement authority for F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and 

EA–18G fighter aircraft (sec. 125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 110–84). Section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 provided specific authorization, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 

as required under section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, for 

the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract for the 

purchase of additional F/A–18E, F/A–18F, or EA–18G aircraft 

under certain conditions, including that: (1) the statutorily required 

written certifications be submitted to the congressional defense 

committees; and (2) the Secretary sign the contract by a certain 

time. This provision would change the effective dates in section 128 

to reflect the fact that the Department was unable to meet those 

specified dates. 

The committee strongly cautions the Department that how it proceeded here is neither preferred nor desirable, and should not be 

viewed as setting any precedent for acquiring major systems on a 

multiyear basis in the future. However, the committee believes 

that, against the backdrop of challenges to the Navy’s managing its 

projected shortfall in tactical aviation (discussed elsewhere in this 

report), the savings of $590.0 million identified by the Secretary of 

Defense is ‘‘substantial’’ within the meaning of section 2306b of 

title 10, United States Code, and sufficient reason to accept the delayed agreement. Therefore, the committee recommends authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to sign a multiyear contract for 

these aircraft before the end of the fiscal year. 

Extracting substantial savings from major systems near the end 

of their production is hard to achieve. In this case, the committee 

approves of the Department’s proposal to: (1) implement certain 

cost reduction initiatives; (2) avoid certain sources of cost peculiar 

to this program; (3) implement a proposed multiyear contract free 

of certain ‘‘reopener’’ clauses that, if exercised, could easily extinguish its savings estimate; and (4) adopt a fixed price-type contract 

as the vehicle for implementing the multiyear agreement. 

Subtitle D—Joint and Multiservice Matters 

System management plan and matrix for the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter Aircraft Program (sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of Defense establish a system management plan and 

matrix for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program that would 

be used to measure progress in gaining maturity for the system 

during the remainder of the system development and demonstration (SDD) program. 

The committee believes that the F–35 represents an essential national capability. However, it remains concerned about whether the 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program will deliver required capability 

required by each of the services when the services need it and at 

prices the Department can afford. 

The basis for that concern arises principally from several reviews 

that were conducted late last year at the direction of the Secretary 

of Defense, including reviews by the Joint Estimating Team, an Industry Manufacturing Review Team, and a Joint Assessment 

Team. In their annual assessments of the program, the Director, 

Operational Testing and Evaluation and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also conveyed troubling information about the 

program’s ability to perform as promised. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
15 

Based on the reviews he directed, the Secretary of Defense fundamentally restructured the program to: (1) extend the development test schedule to March 2015; (2) add additional research, development, testing, and evaluation funds to pay for mitigating 

known risks; (3) buy another carrier variant developmental test 

aircraft and add another software integration line to the program; 

(4) use up to three aircraft procured under low-rate initial production (LRIP) contracts for developmental testing; (5) reduce procurement quantities over the future-years defense program to slow the 

planned production ramp up and offset added funding for developmental testing; and (6) install a new fee structure that would provide incentives for the contractor team to achieve key performance 

events and cost goals. While the Marine Corps may delay its initial 

operational capability date for a few months in 2012, the Navy and 

the Air Force extended theirs several years to 2016. 

The committee supports the Secretary’s plan to restructure the 

F–35 JSF program. However, the committee believes that greater 

insight into it for Congress and others outside the Department is 

warranted. To achieve that goal, the committee believes that the 

Defense Department needs to establish milestones against which 

we can measure progress of the program. 

Therefore, in accordance with the goals set forth by the Program 

Executive Officer for the program, the committee expects the Department of Defense to manage the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program so as to achieve the following milestones by the end 

of this calendar year: 

(1) achieve first flight of the F–35C (carrier variant); 

(2) install and operate Block 1.0 software on all flight test 

aircraft to be delivered this year; 

(3) fully implement those recommendations of the Independent Manufacturing Review Team, reflected in its October 

2009 report and its follow-on assessment of the Production Integrated Transition Plan, that address manufacturing issues 

affecting initial production (in particular, those recommendations relating to the global supply chain; parts shortages and 

change management; first article inspections; test and evaluation; quantitative management metrics; the reduction of unit 

recurring flyaway costs; an integrated management plan/integrated management schedule; the completion of an independent schedule risk assessment by the government; and assessments of producibility); 

(4) deliver all LRIP Lot I aircraft and all remaining developmental aircraft (except for the additional F–35C test aircraft to 

be bought with fiscal year 2011 funds) in flyable status with 

software in Block 1.0 configuration; 

(5) deliver 11 test aircraft in flyable status with software in 

Block 1.0 configuration to Patuxent River Naval Air Station 

and Edwards Air Force Base; 

(6) conduct test flights at a rate of 12 flights per aircraft per 

month; 

(7) complete a minimum of 400 test flights; 

(8) deliver at least 3 training aircraft to Eglin Air Force 

Base; and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
16 

(9) capture real-time data from the flight testing of all F–35 

JSF developmental aircraft and training aircraft using the F– 

35 Autonomous Logistics Information System. Such data collection shall be sufficient to support the Department’s development of a revised operations and sustainment estimate in the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2012. 

If the program reaches each of those milestones, the committee 

believes that the program will be in a position to award a fixedprice incentive fee contract no later than the fiscal year 2011 procurement. 

The Acting Program Executive Officer in the Joint Program Office and the prime contractor both stipulated that the foregoing 

milestones are achievable. 

The committee expects that the program will achieve these milestones and that, if they are not, the Department of Defense will undertake appropriate action to correct any reason for delays, including (but not limited to) withholding fees. 

The recommended provision would look prospectively to measure 

progress during the remainder of the SDD program. As GAO recommended in its most recent report, ‘‘Joint Strike Fighter: Additional Costs and Delays Not Meeting Warfighter Requirements on 

Time,’’ such a plan should provide criteria and conditions for comparing documented results to expected progressive levels of demonstrated weapon system maturity in relationship to planned increases in future procurement quantities. 

The committee believes that the system management plan and 

matrix required under this section will serve as a useful tool by 

which Congress can require the Department to explain how increasing levels of demonstrated, quantifiable knowledge about the 

Joint Strike Fighter program’s maturity at annual procurement decision-points justify increased procurement funding and quantities, 

as the program proceeds to a full-rate procurement decision. 

Contracts for commercial imaging satellite capacities (sec. 

142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to procure or acquire the capacity of 

imaging satellites with 1.5-meter telescopes after December 31, 

2010, if DOD seeks to sustain an augmentation of national overhead imagery capabilities with commercial-class electro-optical capability. The committee intends for DOD to begin to procure or acquire the use of 1.5-meter imaging satellites when it is necessary 

to replenish the additional capacity being acquired through the Enhanced View contract around the middle of the decade. 

The committee was informed by DOD officials that DOD no 

longer has a requirement for survivable, wartime, moderate resolution, wide-area electro-optical imagery. The committee was informed that the additional capacity being acquired through the Enhanced View contract vehicle is intended solely as a backup in the 

event of shortfalls or gaps in the collection of imagery by National 

Intelligence Program (NIP) funded satellite programs. The committee was told that the collection capacity provided by the commercial augmentation program is actually in excess of requirements when the national overhead constellation is at normal levels 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
17 

of capacity. The committee was informed by DOD officials that, in 

the event of a gap or shortfall in national overhead collection capacity, DOD would lower the altitude of the planned 1.1-meter satellites to increase their resolution, regardless of the significant reduction this would cause in the lifetime of the satellites. 

The committee requests that the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council provide the committee with a summary of 

DOD’s peacetime and wartime requirements for space-based 

electro-optical imaging other than from national overhead collection 

systems prior to conference on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The committee notes that a gap or shortfall in national overhead 

collection capacity would most heavily impact the satisfaction of requirements for high-resolution point target collection. The committee notes further that 1.5-meter satellites would be far more capable of providing high-resolution point collection capacity than 

1.1-meter satellites to make up for any such gap. If the purpose of 

the additional capacity being acquired through the Enhanced View 

contract is to provide insurance against a gap in national overhead 

collection, 1.5-meter satellites are clearly preferable. 

Information provided to the committee from the Office of the Vice 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicates that the 10-year 

cost of procuring and operating 1.5-meter satellites, and associated 

ground costs, would be comparable to the 10-year cost of acquiring 

the capacity of 1.1-meter satellites, using independent cost estimates of the cost of the 1.5-meter satellites. Yet, the performance 

of the 1.5-meter satellites would be much greater than the 1.1- 

meter satellites. If DOD decides to procure the 1.5-meter satellites 

directly, the Department should contract with the Commercial 

Data Providers (CDP) to operate the satellites and to process and 

disseminate the data through the CDPs’ ground infrastructure, and 

to allow the CDPs to sell imagery commercially. 

In terms of performance, on a one-to-one comparison, the 1.5- 

meter would collect 3–4 times more high-resolution points and 

high-priority points, and 40–60 percent more total points. In the 

event of a delay or an impairment in national overhead capabilities, a 1.5-meter satellite initiative could regain performance to the 

baseline, whereas the 1.1-meter constellation would fall far short. 

For these reasons, the committee is persuaded that DOD should 

pursue the 1.5-meter-class commercial satellites in the future. 

Quarterly reports on the use of Combat Mission Requirements funds (sec. 143) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to 

report to the congressional defense committees quarterly on the use 

of Combat Mission Requirements funding. The quarterly reports 

would address: (1) the balance of the Combat Mission Requirements account at the beginning of the quarter; (2) the balance of 

the Combat Mission Requirements account at the end of the quarter; (3) any transfer of funding into or out of the Combat Mission 

Requirements account during the quarter (including the source of 

any transfer into the fund, and the objective of any transfer out of 

the fund); (4) a description of any Combat Mission Requirements 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
18 

approved for procurement and/or procured during the quarter; and 

(5) the amount of funds committed to each requirement. 

The committee understands that the Combat Mission Requirements account plays an important role in providing funding for 

critical equipment to satisfy emergent requirements for deploying 

and deployed special operations forces. However, the committee believes that increased visibility over the account, including transfers 

into and out of the account, is necessary to ensure that the congressional defense committees possess sufficient information to exercise 

adequate oversight of relevant procurement accounts. The committee encourages USSOCOM to review its practices regarding 

transfers into and out of the account to ensure that these practices 

are consistent with requirements of law and policy related to the 

reprogramming of defense funds. 

Integration of solid state laser systems into certain aircraft 

(sec. 144) 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has longstanding research and development programs to advance the military usefulness of high-powered lasers mounted on aircraft for defensive and offensive capabilities. Recent advances in the power 

and cooling of solid state lasers have led the Department to begin 

to develop, integrate, and test such lasers on military aircraft such 

as the B–1 bomber. There is concern that the Department may 

solely focus on the B–1 platform without fully analyzing the costbenefit implications as it moves from demonstration to development. 

Hence, the committee recommends a provision for the Department to provide to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 2011, a report analyzing various candidate aircraft 

that are being considered as platforms for high power solid state 

lasers and provide an estimated unit cost to develop an integrated 

laser-aircraft system. The analysis should also estimate the operations and maintenance costs of such an integrated laser aircraft 

system. The committee notes there may not be complete data for 

some candidate aircraft but asks the Department to begin this 

analysis as early as possible in order to fully understand long-term 

life cycle costs. 

The committee also requests that the analysis of the B–1 should 

consider the operational placement of the laser in the aft bay so as 

to maintain the operational kinetic capabilities of the forward and 

center bays. 

Budget Items 

Army 

AH–64 fuselage manufacturing 

The budget request included $160.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for AH–64 Apache block III helicopters. The 

committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in APA to acquire special tooling and qualify a domestic source for the manufacture of the Apache helicopter airframe assembly. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
19 

Guardrail common sensor 

The budget request included $30.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army, in the Overseas Contingency Operations budget for 

the Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS) program. The Army decided 

to modernize and retain 14 GRCS platforms after the budget was 

submitted. As a result, the Army requires only $6.0 million of the 

$30.2 million requested. The committee therefore recommends a reduction of $24.2 million. 

Air warrior survival vest ensemble reset program 

The budget request included $52.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for aircrew integrated systems, but provided no 

funding for the Air Warrior survival vest ensemble reset program. 

The Army requires inspection and reset of aviation survival equipment carriers, flotation collars, and egress air equipment. Due to 

increased operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, equipment is wearing out before its planned maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in APA for the Air Warrior 

survival vest ensemble reset program. 

Non-line of sight launch system 

The budget request included $350.6 million in Missile Procurement, Army (MPA) for the non-line of sight launch system (NLOS– 

LS). The committee is aware that due to performance shortfalls, 

high projected costs for each missile, and the availability of other 

technologies to meet precision artillery fire requirements, the Army 

has recommended cancellation of the NLOS–LS program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $350.6 million in 

MPA for the NLOS–LS. 

Patriot upgrades 

The budget request included $57.2 million in Missile Procurement, Army for modification of the Patriot air and missile defense 

system and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC–3) interceptor 

missile, but insufficient funds to repair and recertify PAC–3 missiles, and procure additional upgraded Patriot launching station 

kits. These PAC–3 upgrades are an Army Chief of Staff unfunded 

priority for fiscal year 2011. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $133.6 million in Missile Procurement, 

Army to cover the cost of the Patriot repairs and upgrades included 

on its Unfunded Priorities List. The Patriot system is the only combat-proven missile defense system in the U.S. military, and demand for Patriot and the PAC–3 missile is high among regional 

combatant commanders, since it provides defensive capability 

against the many existing short-range ballistic missiles in their 

Areas of Responsibility. 

Paladin Integrated Management program 

The budget request included $105.3 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicle Procurement, Army (WTCV) for Paladin 

Integrated Management (PIM) systems. The PIM program would 

upgrade and extend the life of the Army’s current M109A6 Paladin 

self-propelled howitzer system. The committee is aware that due to 

technical and program management challenges the procurement of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

PIM systems will be delayed and therefore procurement is premature. The committee recommends a decrease of $105.3 million in 

WTCV for PIM procurement. 

M2A1 quick change barrel kits 

The budget request included $15.0 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) for M2 50 caliber machine gun 

modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in WTCV for procurement of M2A1 quick change barrel kits 

to support operational safety and enhance the effectiveness of the 

M2 machine gun. 

120mm mortars, Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative reduction 

The budget request included $28.6 million in the base budget 

and $70.0 million in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 

budget request in Procurement of Ammunition, Army for the Advanced Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) 120mm mortars, all 

types. The Army was able to achieve substantial savings through 

open competition in the source selection process and as a result no 

longer needs this funding. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $28.6 million in the 

base budget request and a decrease of $50.1 million in the OCO for 

APMI unit cost savings. 

Efficiency and safety modifications to Heavy Expanded Mobility Ammunition Trailer 

The budget request included $25.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for tactical trailers, but included no funds for the 

Heavy Expanded Mobility Ammunition Trailer (HEMAT) systems. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for 

HEMAT systems. 

Navstar Global Positioning System 

The budget request included $45.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Navstar Global Positioning System. The committee recommends an increase of $51.2 million in OPA for 

Navstar global positioning systems. The additional funding would 

be used to accelerate replacement of older versions of the Precision 

Lightweight Global Position System Receivers that are not Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) compliant. 

SAASM-compliance is a critical component of Army electronic force 

tracking and identification systems. This is a Chief of Staff, Army 

unfunded priority. 

Tactical Local Area Network 

The budget request included $201.1 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for information systems. The Army has a requirement to support Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations 

units with Tactical Local Area Network (TACLAN) to consolidate 

numerous automation and communications efforts into a single program consisting of both hardware and common-user software applications. The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million in 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

OPA to accelerate the acquisition and fielding of TACLAN. This is 

a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority. 

Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar 

The budget request included $58.0 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar (LCMR). 

The LCMR (version 3) is a force protection system that provides 

360 degrees all around coverage to detect, locate, and report the 

target location of enemy mortar firing systems. The committee recommends an increase of $47.1 million in OPA for LCMR. This is 

a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority. 

Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensor 

The budget request included $29.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for Brigade Combat Team unattended ground sensors 

(BCT–UGS). The committee notes that after 6 years of development 

and an investment of approximately $130.0 million the BCT–UGS 

system has failed in user tests to demonstrate required technical 

performance, is unreliable, and has not proven its tactical effectiveness or utility. Specifically, the UGS system demonstrated poor 

communications connectivity, inadequate transmission ranges, poor 

image quality, and frequent system failures. 

The committee also notes that the Army will conduct a System 

Breakout/Contracting Review in December 2010 to address whether the BCT–UGS full-rate production will be multi-sourced through 

an open competition to qualified technologies and vendors. The 

Army reports that non-BCT–UGS systems already procured and 

deployed do not meet all the Capability Production Document’s requirements or are not compliant with the Army’s communications 

network. However, the committee is aware that the program of 

record BCT–UGS system does not meet all the requirements either. 

The committee is concerned that the Army is missing an opportunity to test alternatives and introduce competition into its UGS 

program by failing to take advantage of multiple technologies from 

multiple vendors that may have developed or are capable of developing and producing unattended sensors. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology conduct tests of currently available 

alternative UGS capabilities with particular emphasis on technical 

maturity, interoperability, operational effectiveness, reliability, and 

affordability. 

Given the technical challenges confronting the Army’s BCT–UGS 

system, procurement is premature. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $29.7 million in OPA for BCT–UGS. 

Forward Entry Devices 

The budget request included $6.9 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System 

Forward Entry Devices (FED). The FED is a pocket-sized, handheld computer used by artillery forward observers to communicate 

target data to artillery fire direction centers for precision target engagement. The committee recommends an increase of $16.2 million 

in OPA to procure 408 additional FED devices. This is a Chief of 

Staff, Army unfunded priority. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 

Line of Communication Bridge 

The budget request included $53.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for tactical bridges. The Army has three levels of 

bridging: Assault, Tactical, and Line-of-Communication (LOCB). 

The LOCB provides a sustained capability for heavy traffic over a 

long period of time. Funds provided would accelerate procurement 

of the LOCB to meet an operational needs statement to support 

forces in Afghanistan. The committee recommends an increase of 

$15.0 million in OPA for LOCB. This is a Chief of Staff, Army unfunded priority. 

Fido explosives detection system 

The budget request included $226.0 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection systems, but 

provided no funds for the Fido explosives detection system. The 

Fido explosives detector is deployed and in use by units in Iraq to 

counter improvised explosive devices and land mines. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in OPA for the Fido 

explosive detection system. 

The committee further directs that, not later than August 1, 

2010, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, shall provide to the congressional defense 

committees a report on the Army’s requirement, development, procurement, and fielding of Fido systems. The report should include 

the quantities currently in the Army inventory and deployed to theater and in use, and quantities of Fido systems requested in pending operational needs statements, if any, and how the Army plans 

to satisfy those requests. 

Ground soldier system 

The budget request includes $110.5 million in Other Procurement, Army for the Ground Soldier System (GSS). The GSS is a 

dismounted small unit leaders’ command and control system that 

increases tactical awareness, communication, navigation, safety, 

and unit effectiveness. The committee supports the Army’s efforts 

to enhance the operational capabilities of its platoons, squads, and 

other small units for an increasingly complex and lethal operating 

environment. However, the committee notes that the Army’s acquisition plan for GSS has high schedule risk and will procure over 

4,500 systems ahead of the results of a 2010 limited user test and 

a Milestone C decision scheduled for early 2011. The Committee 

also notes that only 198 of over 4,500 GSS sets will actually deliver 

in fiscal year 2011. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $28.8 million in OPA for GSS. 

Operator driving simulator 

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but included no 

funds for operator driving simulators. Additional driving simulators 

would allow deploying soldiers to maximize their training time 

while providing a realistic experience without risk to personnel or 

equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in OPA for operator driving simulators. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

Immersive group simulation virtual training system 

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but provided no 

funding for the Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System (IGS–VTS). The IGS–VTS is a fully immersive, interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier vehicle training. The 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for the 

IGS–VTS. 

Combat skills marksmanship trainer 

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The committee 

recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for additional combat skills marksmanship trainer systems. 

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle virtual trainers 

The budget request included $297.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but provided no 

funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Virtual 

Trainer (MRAP–VVT). The MRAP–VVT is a fully interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier vehicle training. The 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for the 

MRAP–VVT. 

Combined arms collective training facility 

The budget request included $23.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) non-system training devices for combined arms collective training facilities. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.2 million in OPA to accelerate the installation of combined arms 

collective training facilities. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request includes $215.9 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF) staff and infrastructure line of operation. The committee recommends full funding for 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), 

but recommends transferring all of JIEDDF funds from title I to 

the same budget activities in title XV, which fund the Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO) of the Department. 

The committee believes JIEDDO—despite the Department’s decision to institutionalize it—should be in the OCO portion of the 

budget request as it was established in response to threats confronted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Navy 

F–18 multiyear procurement savings 

The budget request included $1,083.9 million to purchase 12 EA– 

18G and $1,787.2 million to purchase 22 

F/A–18E/F aircraft. Since the Navy had not completed negotiations 

for proposed multiyear procurement contract for these F–18 airVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

craft, the Navy based the budget estimates on executing a series 

on annual procurements. 

The committee understands that a multiyear contract for F–18s will result in $130.5 million savings in fiscal year 2011 compared 

to the budget request, consisting of $45.9 million savings for EA– 

18G and $84.6 million for F/A–18E/F. 

The committee has included a provision elsewhere in this Act 

that would enable the Navy to sign the multiyear contract, and, 

therefore, recommends a reduction of $130.5 million to the budget 

request. 

F/A–18E/F 

The budget request included $1,787.2 million to purchase 22 F/ 

A–18E/F aircraft. This is four more than were approved in the fiscal year 2010 budget. This is also an increase of 5 aircraft from the 

fiscal year plan for 17 aircraft included in the last future-years defense program (FYDP) by President Bush. 

The committee has expressed concern that the Navy is facing a 

sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A–18A–D Hornets retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F–35C) of the Joint Strike 

Fighter is available. The committee raised this issue in the committee reports accompanying: (1) S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110–77) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008; (2) S. 

3001 (S. Rept. 110–335) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009; and (3) S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111–35) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 

Two years ago, the committee received testimony from the Navy 

about a projected shortfall in Navy tactical aviation. The Navy indicated that, under assumptions current at that time, it would experience a shortfall of 69 tactical aircraft in the year 2017, a number that swells to 125 when requirements of the United States Marine Corps are included. 

Last year, the Chief of Naval Operations said that the projected 

gap may be as high as 250 aircraft total for the Department of the 

Navy. 

This year, the Navy says that through various ‘‘management 

techniques,’’ the maximum shortfall is now projected to be around 

150 aircraft, or 3–4 carriers’ worth of airplanes. 

This change is not based on a change in overall requirements. 

The committee is disappointed that, despite promises that the Department of Defense intends to review the whole issue of tactical 

aircraft force structure in the pending Quadrennial Defense Review, no decision on force structure came from that effort. The committee had hoped that the Department’s tactical aviation procurement strategies would have been informed by the Quadrennial Defense Review. 

The committee is still seeking details behind the changed assumptions that lead to the new estimates. At first impression, some 

of these appear to be legitimate actions that the Navy should take. 

For example, changing the fielding plan for the Marine Corps F– 

35B to replace older F/A–18 aircraft, rather than first replacing 

AV–8B aircraft that still have service life remaining, seems to be 

reasonable. Other changed assumptions do not appear to be so legitimate. For example, a portion of the shortfall reduction comes 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
25 

from reducing land-based Marine Corps F/A–18 squadron sizes 

from 12 to 10 aircraft. The committee has seen no analysis that 

would indicate that the effect of taking such action has been assessed in terms of war fighting capability. In fact, it represents the 

sort of action to modify requirements arbitrarily that the committee 

feared would be taken in the face of the impending shortage. 

The change does not derive from implementing a service life extension program (SLEP) for older F/A–18s. The Navy says that any 

decision on undertaking a SLEP to solve some portion of that 

shortfall will not be made until the time the President submits the 

budget request for fiscal year 2012. 

The committee understands that a SLEP to extend the life of select legacy F/A–18s from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours is currently 

estimated to cost on average $26.0 million per plane. In light of 

such costs, and in anticipation of the Navy’s negotiating a 

multiyear procurement contract that could result in substantial 

savings over current procurement costs, the committee expects the 

Navy to present a thorough business case analysis with the fiscal 

year 2012 budget of the appropriate mix of alternatives for addressing the potential shortfall of aircraft, including both SLEP 

and new procurement. 

The committee is encouraged by the increase in F/A–18E/F procurement in the fiscal year budget, both compared to fiscal year 

2010 and compared to the plan for fiscal year 2011 in the last Bush 

FYDP. The committee understands that this increase was part of 

the Department’s effort to address the shortfall and buy enough 

aircraft in the FYDP to make a multiyear procurement achieve the 

substantial savings that would make such a commitment attractive. On April 30, 2010, the Secretary of the Navy informed the 

Navy was still working through the details of negotiating with the 

contractor team on a multiyear contract that would take advantage 

of the authority provided by section 128 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

The committee applauds the Navy’s efforts to reduce the shortfall, but believes that more action now is necessary. The committee 

is concerned that delays in the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program 

could exacerbate the problem beyond what it appears to be now. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $325.0 million 

to buy six additional F/A–18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2011. 

MH–60R/S mission avionics 

The budget request included $232.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for advance procurement for the MH–60R 

($162.0 million) and the MH–60S ($70.1 million). Within that total, 

the request included $36.0 million ($32.3 million for MH–60R and 

$3.7 million MH–60S) for economic order quantity (EOQ) funding 

associated with a potential multiyear procurement contract for 

MH–60R/S mission avionics that the Navy had hoped to award in 

fiscal year 2011. 

In the committee’s view, the Department should provide the certifications required under section 2306b of title 10, United States 

Code, in the same year as it seeks authorization for EOQ funding. 

The committee understands, however, that due to an internal 

oversight within the Navy, the Navy was not able to obtain the cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

tifications from the Secretary of Defense required under section 

2306b of title 10, United States Code, and therefore will not be able 

to award any contract in 2011 for EOQ funding associated with a 

potential multiyear procurement request. 

The committee understands that the Navy believes that it can 

preserve savings from a potential multiyear procurement contract 

by applying the 2011 EOQ funds instead to regular advance procurement activities in 2011. 

Therefore, the committee recommends shifting all funds requested for EOQ to regular advance procurement activities. 

AN/AAR–47 missile warning system computer processor upgrade 

The budget request included $21.9 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for common electronic counter measures, but 

included no funds for the AN/AAR–47 missile warning system. The 

AN/AAR–47 warns of approaching missiles by detecting radiation 

associated with rocket motors and automatically initiates flare ejection. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 

APN for AN/AAR–47 missile warning system computer processor 

upgrade. 

Readiness support for Navy unfunded aviation spares and 

repair parts maintenance priorities 

The budget request included $18.5 billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) of which $1.2 billion was for aircraft spares and 

repair parts, which is also one of only three unfunded requirements 

submitted by the Chief of Naval Operations. The Vice Chief of 

Naval Operations testified before the committee that this unfunded 

requirement is executable, and would directly support and restore 

Naval readiness. 

The committee notes that the same unfunded priorities for ship 

and aircraft depot maintenance were identified in fiscal year 2010 

but were not fully supported by the Committees on Appropriations 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives. As a result a 1- 

year backlog of deferred aircraft depot maintenance was not executed. The committee is concerned that failure to address this 

backlog and failure to support this unfunded request for active and 

reserve aircraft spares and repair parts in fiscal year 2011 for active and reserve units will continue to jeopardize and erode aircraft 

materiel readiness, further reduce the service life of the fleet, increase long-term sustainment costs, and further increase strategic 

risk for the Nation. 

Additionally, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before 

the committee that failure to support unfunded aircraft depot 

maintenance requirements could result in reducing flying hours 

and deferred training exercises which are vital to naval readiness 

and our responsibility to maintain a trained and equipped force. 

Exacerbating the issue, increased operational tempo in the United 

States Central Command area of operations has already resulted 

in added materiel strain on the fleet. The committee notes that as 

demand for aircraft use and flying hours increased, the demand 

and requirement for additional spares and repair parts increased 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

40 percent in fiscal year 2011 largely due to V–22, EA–18G, F/A– 

18E/F, and E–2C/D operational tempo increases. 

The committee continues to urge the Secretary of the Navy and 

Chief of Naval Operations to fully restore aircraft spares and repair parts requirements in the fiscal year 2012 base budget request. The committee recommends an increase of $423.0 million in APN 

for aircraft depot maintenance spares to support 3,700 individual 

fleet aircraft. 

Weapons industrial facilities 

The budget request included $3.3 million for various activities at 

government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program at the Allegany Ballistics 

Laboratory. 

Gun mount mods 

The budget request included $44.0 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for various types of gun weapon system and 

sub-system modifications and upgrade requirements, including 

$35.4 million for various modifications for the Mk 38 Mod 2 Minor 

Caliber Gun System, but included no funding improving the depot 

support capability for the Mk 38 Mod 2 system nor for the Mk 110 

Gun System. 

The committee believes that the Navy needs to move more expeditiously to establish and expand the level of depot support for 

these weapons systems. The committee recommends an increase of 

$11.0 million in WPN for improving depot support capability for 

gun weapons systems, including $6.0 million for the Mk 110 system 

and $5.0 million for the Mk 38 Mod 2 system. 

Virginia-class tube test equipment 

The budget request included $132.0 million in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Virginia-class submarine support equipment, but no funding to procure tube test equipment for the class. 

In order to maintain the readiness of submarine weapon systems, 

the Navy maintains a number of land-based test platforms at the 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC). The Navy has installed 

test platforms at NUWC for all active classes of submarines, except 

for the Virginia-class submarines. The committee believes that 

funds should be used to provide NUWC with capability to support 

the Virginia-class by providing actual shipboard equipment that 

would allow NUWC to replicate ship conditions as closely as possible in executing its fleet support missions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million 

for the procurement of tube test equipment for the Virginia-class. 

Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project 

The budget request included $126.8 million in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for ship support equipment items costing less 

than $5.0 million, but included no funding for developing and implementing a remote monitoring and troubleshooting capability 

that would allow Navy engineers to provide global remote 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 

sustainment support to the fleet by remotely reading on-board sensors, monitoring shipboard system status, and providing expert advice to sailors as they maintain and repair ship systems. 

The committee believes that such a capability would yield savings, but, perhaps more importantly, lead to better readiness levels. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million in OPN for completing a system design update, developing deployment plans, and certifications and deploying the initial system. 

Helicopter hangar door upgrades 

The budget request included $126.8 million in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for ship support equipment items costing less 

than $5.0 million, but included no funding for buying upgrade kits 

for DDG–51 helicopter hangar doors. 

The helicopter hangar doors on DDG–51 destroyers have been experiencing a significant number of failures. When the doors are inoperable, the ship is prevented from being able to launch and recover its embarked helicopter. The Navy has been investigating a 

helicopter hangar door upgrade program which would be a comprehensive solution to the readiness issue facing the largest ship 

class in the U.S. Navy. 

The committee believes that fielding an upgrade helicopter hangar door would lead to better readiness levels. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in OPN for buying 

DDG–51 hangar door upgrade kits. 

Range support vehicle 

The budget request included $27.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), for standard boats, but included no funding for buying 

any range support vessels that include capability to recover torpedoes and other Navy unmanned systems. 

Most Navy installations that have a torpedo recovery mission 

have antiquated torpedo recovery boat fleets. The committee understands that most of these boats are approximately 40 years old and 

are at the end of their useful service life. These vessels are expensive to maintain, and have recovery systems that risk damaging 

new unmanned surface and undersea vehicles. 

A new range support vehicle, with a new advanced multi-mission 

launch and recovery system, would be capable of executing all mission requirements, including lost weapon search, instrument deployment, equipment and personnel transfer, weapon trans-shipment, open ocean retrieval, Coast Guard search and rescue, and 

support for special vehicles and classified programs associated with 

anti-submarine warfare. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in OPN 

for buying a new range support vessel. 

Man overboard indicators 

The budget request included $47.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), for command support equipment, but no funding to 

procure man overboard indicators (MOBI). 

The Navy has tested a one-per-person MOBI transmitter. Additionally, at least two expeditionary strike groups recommended the 

Navy procure MOBI transmitters for each embarked sailor, marine, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

and airman. The committee understands that a large majority of 

ship commanding officers having MOBI systems installed have requested additional MOBI transmitters in order to protect all embarked personnel. In addition, the U.S. Navy Safety Center has 

recommended that each embarked sailor and marine be afforded 

MOBI protection. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.9 million 

for the procurement of additional MOBI systems. 

Air Force 

C–17 

The budget request included $14.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for C–17 aircraft procurement in the full 

funding line to purchase various support equipment items, and 

$153.3 million for C–17 post production support activities. The Air 

Force made this request in error, as they should have requested 

$114.4 million of the post production support funds in the full funding line, instead of the post production support line. 

The Air Force asked that the committee make a zero sum transfer of this amount to the proper funding line. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $114.4 million in the C–17 full 

funding line and a reduction to the C–17 post production support 

line of the same amount. 

Airborne signals intelligence payload 

The budget request included $863.6 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the MQ–9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. Of 

that amount, $18.3 million is requested to begin production of the 

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 2C (ASIP 2C). 

The Government Accountability Office notes that the Milestone 

B decision for this project will be made in November 2011, which 

means that the sensor will not be ready for production in fiscal 

year 2011. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$18.3 million. 

C–135 modifications 

The budget request included $44.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C–135 Modifications Program, including $8.4 million to begin procurement of the Block 45 upgrade 

program, and no funding for fielding any infrared countermeasures 

systems on the KC–135R tanker fleet. The Block 45 upgrade program for the KC–135 will address reliability, maintainability, and 

obsolescence issues currently experienced in the tanker fleet by replacing current cockpit equipment with the following new systems: 

(1) digital flight director; (2) digital radar altimeter; (3) digital 

autopilot; and (4) electronic engine instrument displays. 

The committee believes that the Air Force should take greater 

steps to keep the KC–135 tanker fleet viable for meeting combatant 

commander requirements. The Air Force plan now appears to be to 

wait for fielding infrared countermeasures on tankers with the 

fielding of KC-X to provide a capability to operate in increased 

threat areas. The committee believes that the KC-X program 

should have that capability, but does not agree that the Air Force 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

should wait on KC-X. Even under the most optimistic KC-X acquisition plans, the KC–135R fleet will be operating for many years 

to come. 

Therefore, the committee believes that the Air Force should 

begin to outfit high priority aircraft in the KC–135R fleet with podbased large aircraft infrared countermeasures (LAIRCM) systems 

to make them better able to support war fighting requirements and 

recommends an increase in fiscal year 2011 for that purpose. 

The committee supports the Block 45 upgrade program, but un- derstands that the Air Force has decided to defer $5.0 million of 

the fiscal year 2011 Block 45 procurement request until fiscal year 

2012. 

The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million for 

LAIRCM installations on 10 KC–135 aircraft and a reduction of 

$5.0 million to reflect delays in the Block 45 program. 

E–8 modifications 

The budget request included $188.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the E–8 Modifications Program, including $120.4 million to procure two re-engining kits for the Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. 

The JSTARS system has been providing indispensible intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to those serving 

in combat operations. In Afghanistan, the JSTARS wide-area 

ground surveillance radar plays a critical role in the military’s ability to track and engage Taliban insurgents and find improvised explosive devices. The demands placed upon the JSTARS fleet underscores growing operational, sustainment, and safety issues with the 

existing engines. 

Because engine problems currently jeopardize both the current 

operations and long-term viability of the JSTARS fleet, the Air 

Force commenced a JSTARS re-engining program in May 2008. 

Last year, the Air Force sought to interrupt the re-engining program when: (1) program officials saw cost increases in the program; 

(2) an Air Force Fleet Viability Board (FVB) report raised questions 

about the long-term prospects for retaining the JSTARS fleet; and 

(3) questions arose about the best way to meet ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability in the future. 

The committee recognizes that a significant portion of the cost increases that arose were the result of having to restructure the acquisition program from a commercial-type acquisition contract to 

one that follows normal Defense acquisition rules. Buying reengining kits at low rates will not do anything to help keep costs 

under control. The lost economies of scale from only procuring two 

ship sets instead of four in fiscal year 2011 will raise the cost of 

the program. 

The committee closely studied the FVB report. The major concern in the report revolved around concerns that the original aircraft conversion process had resulted in aircraft with uncertain 

structural and engineering pedigrees. The committee understands 

that the Air Force and the contractor team are working through 

the data in a manner that will resolve uncertainties. The committee had raised such concerns about remaining airframe life during the execution of the original JSTARS program. The committee 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 

was assured by Air Force officials and the contractor team at the 

time that rigorous oversight and controls on the program were 

going to ensure that the aircraft delivered from the conversion program would have a full measure of service life remaining after conversion. 

The committee believes that the Air Force is wise to consider 

long-term requirements for meeting GMTI requirements, since new 

requirements for dismounted GMTI have come from the combatant 

commanders. The JSTARS system may not be the optimal system 

for certain niche requirements, but field testing of JSTARS has 

shown promise for achieving dismounted GMTI capability with the 

aircraft. Unless the Defense Department were to decide that it can 

afford to divest itself of broad area GMTI capability, the committee 

believes that the JSTARS system will have an important place in 

the future force structure. While the Defense Department studies 

this mission area, the committee believes it is prudent and involves 

little risk in continuing the re-engining program to address nearterm operating issues, and to address long-term sustainability concerns identified by the FVB report. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $102.5 million for two additional ship sets to retain economies of scale in this 

effort and put the Air Force on a track to execute the entire program over the future-years defense program to mitigate the negative operational, sustainment, and safety effects of operating with 

the current engines. 

Milsatcom terminals 

The budget request included $140.5 million for milsatcom terminals for the family of beyond line of site terminals (FAB–T) in Air 

Craft Procurement, Air Force, line 75. The FAB–T program has 

been delayed and procurement funds are now needed to continue 

FAB–T research. The committee recommends that $116.4 million 

be transferred to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 

Force, PE 33601F line 180. 

Evolved expendable launch vehicle 

The budget request included $1.2 billion for the evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV) in Missile Procurement, Air Force, line 

24. The committee recommends an additional $24.0 million for the 

EELV, including $10.0 million to continue the process of EELV 

modernization to ensure that the EELV is able to be tracked using 

global positioning system tracking capability, and $14.0 million for 

crew augmentation. The additional $14.0 million is recommended 

to support additional launch crews to accommodate the increase in 

the launch rate in 2011. 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System 

The budget request included $26.3 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, line 28 for the Air Force portion of the acquisition 

of the sensors and the third National Polar-orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) satellite vehicle. The 

committee recommends a reduction of $16.3 million. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
32 

The NPOESS was a joint Department of Commerce/National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) program 

that was restructured after the budget was submitted. With the restructuring, the Department of Defense (DOD) will be responsible 

for the early morning orbit and NOAA will be responsible for the 

afternoon orbit. Although DOD has indicated its intention to develop a successor program for the morning orbit there is no program plan at the moment. In addition, fiscal year 2010 funds are 

available to support any NPOESS follow-on decisions. 

Joint threat emitter 

The budget request included $29.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF), for making improvements at combat training 

ranges, including $11.8 million for the joint threat emitter (JTE) 

program. These improvements are aimed at increasing the capability to support realistic air-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-air, 

and electronic warfare training, along with the ability to record and 

play-back events for aircrew debriefing and analysis. 

The committee believes that the Air Force should accelerate its 

range modernization efforts to replace existing systems with JTE 

and upgrade existing JTE systems. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 7.5 million 

in OPAF for the JTE modernization program. 

Eastern processing facility 

The budget request included $91.0 million for the Spacelift 

Range System in Other Procurement, Air Force, line 43 but no 

funds for the Eastern processing facility. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million to complete the Eastern processing facility. 

Kodiak Launch Complex 

The budget request included $91.0 for the Spacelift Range System (SLRS) in Other Procurement, Air Force, line 43 but no funds 

for the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC). The committee recommends 

an increase of $9.5 million to sustain the KLC to support Air Force 

and other U.S. government launches. 

Defense-wide 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system 

The budget request included $858.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, for procurement of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors. The committee notes that there is currently a production and delivery delay of more than 3 months for 

THAAD interceptors because of a pending failure review board investigation of a failed safety component, the Laser-Initiated Ordnance System optical block. The committee commends MDA for 

conducting a thorough failure investigation and resolving the problem before resuming production and delivery of interceptors. Given 

this production delay, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$25.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide, for THAAD production. This recommendation is made without prejudice to the 

THAAD system, and reflects the fact-of-life delay in production and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
33 

delivery, and the consequent inability of the program to execute the 

full level of requested funds within fiscal year 2011. 

Special Operations Force Deployable Nodes 

The budget request included $58.4 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for special operations force (SOF) communications 

equipment and electronics, including SOF Deployable Nodes (SDN). 

SDN are a family of secure satellite communications devices that 

provide special operations personnel with deployable video, voice, 

and data transmission capabilities. The SDN family of devices 

come in light, medium, and heavy variants to meet the mission-tailored requirements of special operations units. The Commander of 

U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a $28.0 million 

shortfall in funding for SDN-Light and SDN-Medium devices. The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for SDN-Light and SDN-Medium devices 

for U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Enhanced Combat Optical Sight 

The budget request included $30.1 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for Small Arms and Weapons. However, it included no 

funding for Enhanced Combat Optical Sights (ECOS) for grenade 

launchers used by special operations forces. U.S. Special Operations Command has a validated requirement for 5,386 ECOS, but 

has not procured any to date. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Small Arms and Weapons, for the procurement of ECOS by U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle 

The budget request included $30.1 million in Procurement, De- fense-wide for Small Arms and Weapons, including $2.7 million for 

Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifles (SCAR). The 

SCAR family of rifles includes 5.56 and 7.62 mm variants, each 

with replacement barrels of different lengths to ensure modularity 

to meet mission requirements. The SCAR provides special operations personnel with improved reliability, lethality, and versatility 

over legacy rifles. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a $1.6 million shortfall in funding for these rifles. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for the SCAR family of rifles for U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Ground Mobility Vehicle modification kits 

The budget request included $30.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for Tactical Vehicles, but did not include any funding for 

Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV) modification kits. The GMV is a 

Service-provided High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle 

modified to meet special operations mission requirements. Special 

operations-peculiar modifications provide enhanced survivability, 

mobility, payload, and communications capabilities. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a $55.0 

million shortfall in funding for GMV modification kits. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
34 

The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Tactical Vehicles, for GMV modification 

kits for U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Special operations binocular/monocular visual augmentation devices 

The budget request included $8.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for binocular/monocular vision augmentation devices. 

These devices allow special operations personnel to detect, recognize, and identify targets under varying light conditions or at 

ranges at which the operator would not normally be able to see. 

The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a $20.9 million shortfall in funding for these visual augmentation devices. Currently, special operations personnel are forced to 

share visual augmentation devices to accomplish missions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for binocular/monocular visual augmentation devices for U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Clip On Thermal Imager 

The budget request included $18.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for the special operations forces (SOF) visual augmentation, lasers, and sensor systems. However, no funding was included 

for Clip On Thermal Imagers (COTI). These imagers attach to 

night vision goggles to significantly increase their performance in 

extreme low light or foliated conditions and provide the user with 

much greater situational awareness on the battlefield. The Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a $4.9 

million shortfall in funding for these imagers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Visual Augmentation, Lasers and 

Sensor Systems, for COTIs for U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of helicopter support 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide, not 

later than January 15, 2011, the congressional defense committees 

his assessment of the helicopter requirements for civil support missions in Alaska. The Secretary’s assessment should be based upon, 

and update if necessary, the determination of Department of Defense civil support requirements pursuant to section 1815 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181). The Secretary shall report his findings and the actions he proposes to take, if any, with respect to any capability 

gaps identified by his assessment. 

Combat search and rescue helicopter fleet 

The committee is concerned that the missions of the fleet of the 

Air Force combat search and rescue HH–60 helicopters, which has 

been expanded to include medical evacuation in Afghanistan, is 

dramatically increasing the routine ‘‘wear and tear’’ on these aging 

aircraft. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
35 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Commander, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

within 90 days of enactment of this Act to address aircraft maintenance, upgrade, and replacement efforts currently underway to ensure that this mission can continue to be effectively executed. 

Development and fielding of Paladin Integrated Management program 

The M109A6 Paladin is the 6th version of the M109 self-propelled howitzer, originally designed in the 1950s and produced in 

the 1960s. According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, the Paladin will 

begin to reach obsolescence by 2012 with the engine becoming 

unsupportable and increased track, suspension, and generator failures. 

Last year, in the Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 

111–35) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010, the committee directed the Army to prioritize the development and fielding of the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) 

program due to the cancellation of the Non-Line of Sight Cannon 

program. The Army responded by making PIM a top priority and 

planned for full rate production beginning in 2012. The committee 

is aware that due to program mismanagement, the full rate production will not begin until 2017 based on the Army’s current timeline. 

The committee is concerned by the Army’s apparent inability to develop and execute a Paladin modernization program in less than 7 

years. Delay in the PIM program will negatively impact the operational effectiveness and reliability of the Army’s only self-propelled howitzer, as well as its broader indirect fire systems development program. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

reassess the PIM development and production schedules and report 

to the congressional defense committees, not later than November 

1, 2010, its plans to compress the overall timeline. The report shall 

include cost, schedule, and performance alternatives that provide 

high, medium, and low risk options to developing, producing, and 

fielding PIM on a compressed schedule. 

F–16 upgrades 

The committee has received and reviewed the Air Force’s report 

on procurement of so-called ‘‘4.5 generation’’ fighter aircraft required by section 121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). From this document, it is 

clear that the Air Force would prefer to ensure its F–16 fleet will 

remain capable through the end of its projected service life in 2025 

by making appropriate upgrades to the fleet, rather than purchasing new F–16s. The committee notes that while mid-life extension programs and other upgrades have extended the capability of 

the existing F–16 fleet, there are still gaps in fourth generation capabilities that will need to be addressed. In addition, there are 

some investments in capability improvements that would have a 

potentially very positive effect on operating and support costs for 

the remainder of the life of the F–16 fleet. One such effort would 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
36 

be upgrading the current F–16 radar with an active electronically 

scanned radar (AESA) that has been developed and flight tested on 

the F–16. The committee understands that the Air Force estimates 

that this AESA radar offers an 8 to 10 fold reduction in operations 

and sustainment cost, and a 5 to 10 fold increase in reliability over 

the mechanically scanned AN/APG–68 radar. 

The committee strongly supports Air Force efforts to maintain 

and modernize the F–16 to avoid potential shortfalls in numbers or 

capabilities of these aircraft. As a part of that plan, the committee 

directs the Air Force to consider including AESA retrofit funding 

for engineering and manufacturing development and low-rate initial procurement in the budget request for fiscal year 2012, and 

recommends that any such retrofit program be executed expeditiously in order to minimize any potential shortfalls in force structure or capability. 

40mm target practice rounds 

The committee is aware that the MK281 target practice round is 

non-dud producing and an environmentally safe training cartridge 

for the M203 grenade launcher and MK19 grenade machine gun 

weapon systems. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than November 30, 2010, that details the Army’s 40mm training 

cartridge requirements, acquisition history and strategy, including 

past and projected reprogramming actions, an assessment of the 

40mm training cartridge industrial base, and a description of the 

annual consumption of 40mm target practice cartridges for the last 

5 years. 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle 

The Committee is aware that vulnerabilities to improvised explosive devices in the current fleet of utility (thin-skinned) and armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) 

has reduced the operational usefulness of these vehicles in support 

of overseas contingency operations, particularly, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Committee also notes that this limited use of 

HMMWVs in theater has resulted in far fewer than expected combat losses and significantly lower maintenance demands and costs. 

Despite the appropriately limited use of HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan due to these force protection considerations, the 

HMMWV will remain the foundation of the Department’s light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet for years to come. The Army alone will 

have over 152,000 HMMWVs in its inventory, of which 60,000 will 

be armored. 

The Committee supports the Army’s and Marine Corps’ plans to 

initiate a selective HMMWV recapitalization program that prudently resets, rebuilds, and extends the life of the existing utility 

and armored vehicle fleets at their current capabilities. At the 

same time, the Army and Marine Corps will investigate new armor 

technologies that may increase the HMMWV’s protective capabilities and that could be applied in an additional recapitalization program. The Committee understands that should new approaches to 

HMMWV armor prove technologically feasible and affordable, the 

Army intends that the recapitalization program to apply this capaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

bility would be based upon a full and open competition among public, private, or public-private partnership providers. 

The Committee supports this approach as a means of getting the 

most value out of what will be a very large utility and armored 

HMMWV vehicle fleet for many years to come. This approach will 

also look seriously at technologies to increase the HMMWVs force 

protection and survivability and potentially increase their relevance and availability for deployed contingency operations. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition to submit to the congressional 

defense committees, not later than March 31, 2011, a report from 

each, detailing the military department’s acquisition strategy for 

HMMWV recapitalization. The required reports shall include: 

(1) the requirements and analysis of alternatives regarding 

recapitalization of the existing HMMWV fleet, for active and 

reserve components, at the current levels of capability of utility 

and armored variants; 

(2) the strategy and plans for research, development, testing, 

competition, and procurement, including schedules and funding 

profiles, associated with a new program to recapitalize 

HMMWVs with increased survivability, mobility, or operational capability; and 

(3) the relationship of the military department’s HMMWV 

recapitalization programs, for both current and potential future capabilities, with plans for the development and procurement of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. 

Finally, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretaries of the 

Army and Navy named above to submit a report each describing 

their analysis and acquisition decisions at the conclusion of live fire 

testing of new armor alternatives, their business case analysis 

leading to a decision to compete a recapitalization program, and 

their decision to award a contract or contracts at the conclusion of 

a competition, if held. 

Rapid equipping soldier support equipment 

The committee notes with concern that the Army has been slow 

to obligate and expend funds provided by Congress for its rapid 

equipping soldier support equipment program. As of March this 

year, the Army had failed to obligate $320.0 million provided in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 appropriations. The committee supports 

making funds available to the Army to meet the emergent requirements of deployed forces and take advantage of new technologies 

that have high military value and are immediately available for 

use. In this regard the committee has been willing to accept the 

uncertainty associated with providing the Department obligating 

authority without knowing specifically if or for what the funds will 

be used. The Department has the responsibility to prudently judge 

whether or not, as well as when and for what, to use these funds. 

However the committee expects the Army to aggressively manage 

this program to ensure that funds are obligated and expended 

within a reasonable time for the purposes intended. Accordingly, 

the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide a monthly report to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

the congressional defense committees detailing the obligation and 

expenditure of funds in the rapid equipping soldier support equipment program until funds made available in fiscal years 2008, 

2009, and 2010 are obligated. The Assistant Secretary should include in his initial report a description of how the funds are managed and what official is responsible for directing their use to ensure timely financial execution. Each subsequent report should include a justification for delays in obligation of such funds, if beyond 

the fiscal year for which they were made available. 

Report on expeditionary amphibious warfare ship force 

structure 

The Marine Corps provides a combined-arms, expeditionary force 

in readiness able to deploy rapidly by sea or air. Marine air-ground 

task forces are in high demand for missions such as sustained combat operations; irregular warfare; forward presence; maritime security; humanitarian assistance; disaster relief; and security cooperation. 

The committee has heard testimony that the joint requirement 

for amphibious forcible entry is having a simultaneously employable two Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault capability, 

reinforced and supported by a Maritime Prepositioning Force 

(MPF) squadron. Carrying one MEB assault echelon requires approximately 17 operationally available amphibious warfare ships, 

resulting in a combined total requirement of 34 operationally available ships. These 34 ships would carry a force of approximately 

15,000 to 18,000 Marines and their equipment, vehicles, aircraft, 

and logistics support. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of 

Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have 

determined that the Navy needs to have a total inventory of 38 

ships to achieve a 34-ship level that is operationally available 

throughout the year. This larger number of ships allows for ships 

that are unavailable due to extended maintenance availabilities. 

The Navy’s ‘‘Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for 

Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011’’ uses the 313-ship battle force inventory as its baseline. In light of current fiscal constraints, the report states an amphibious inventory of approximately 33 amphibious ships will be maintained for the Marine 

Corps’ assault echelon. The senior leadership of the Department of 

the Navy, including the Commandant, has testified to the committee that a 33-ship force of amphibious vessels represents an acceptable level of risk. 

The Navy’s report also indicates that the amphibious assault 

ships USS Nassau (LHA–4) and USS Peleliu (LHA–5) will be decommissioned earlier than had been planned, resulting in a reduction in amphibious warfare force inventory levels to a level of 29 

ships within the current future-years defense program. This reduction may create a higher level of strategic risk. It is not clear to 

the committee that either the Department of the Navy or the Department of Defense has yet assessed and incorporated these revised force levels into updated planning to determine if this smaller 

force can meet combatant commander requirements. 

The committee notes the Navy’s ability to reestablish a 33-ship 

force may be adversely affected by a constrained shipbuilding budgVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 

et, among other factors. The new San Antonio-class of amphibious 

transport dock ships and LHA–6 class amphibious assault ships 

continue to experience construction delays and late deliveries. 

Moreover, in-service San Antonio-class ships are now experiencing 

structural and material deficiencies that oblige the Navy to remove 

them from service at least temporarily to conduct unscheduled 

maintenance and repair availabilities. 

The Navy also has revised its long-range shipbuilding plans in 

ways that will reduce the capability of its amphibious force structure. The Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) was originally planned 

to be a part of the larger Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) 

(MPF (F)). The MPF (F) set of capabilities were being developed 

under a sea-basing concept that would have provided a means to 

conduct combat operations and other missions in areas of the world 

where access to port facilities was not available. 

The Navy has now restructured the previous MPF (F) concept in 

favor of enhancing existing afloat prepositioning capabilities for use 

in low-threat environments. As a result of this change, the Navy 

may delay acquisition of large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships 

by more than a decade. Additionally, the MLP has been redesigned 

as a smaller, less capable ship than the ship for which Congress 

authorized and appropriated advance procurement funding in fiscal 

year 2010. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) to conduct a capabilities-based study of the Navy’s latest 30- 

year shipbuilding plan for amphibious warfare ship force structure. 

The study shall address each of the foregoing developments by assessing their effect on: (1) the Navy’s ability to satisfy joint and 

combatant commander requirements for U.S. Marine Corps amphibious capabilities; (2) the Navy’s ability to support U.S. Marine 

Corps force-in-readiness requirements, to include operational tempo 

and personnel tempo; and (3) training and readiness of the Marine 

Corps to execute its full set of expeditionary amphibious missions. 

The committee directs that the CBO provide this report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2011. 

The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to complete 

an operational capabilities-based assessment that reviews and reconciles amphibious requirements, ship retirement schedules, and 

the 30-year shipbuilding plan. The report will include: (1) combatant commanders’ requirements for sufficient expeditionary amphibious capabilities; (2) Marine Corps’ requirements for sufficient expeditionary amphibious capabilities to fully support combatant 

commanders’ requirements; (3) effects of early decommissioning of 

amphibious ships prior to their replacement on Marine Corps training, capacity, force structure, and combat capability; (4) review of 

Marine Corps operations and contingency plans that require expeditionary amphibious capabilities; (5) review of how Marine Corps 

expeditionary capabilities and Navy expeditionary amphibious 

ships and capacity fit within the U.S. military’s regional concept of 

operations and defense-planning scenarios; and (6) description of 

the cost savings associated with retiring amphibious ships on their 

current schedule and an explanation of how the Navy will invest 

such savings in other programs or to address other funding requirements. The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
40 

provide this report to the congressional defense committees by 

March 1, 2011. 

Surface ship construction and industrial base issues 

The committee recognizes that the Navy’s most recent LongRange Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels continues the 

Navy’s long stated goal of a minimum fleet of 313 battle force 

ships. The committee notes that this plan is based on a 2005 Force 

Structure Assessment and a new Force Structure Assessment is required to address expanded requirements identified in the 2009 

Quadrennial Defense Review for irregular warfare support, ballistic 

missile defense, intratheater lift, and humanitarian missions. The 

committee encourages the Navy to complete this review as expeditiously as possible so the results can be incorporated in the next 

Long-Range Plan. 

The committee continues to have significant concerns regarding 

the implications of the plan for the non-nuclear surface ship industrial base. If the Navy and industry, working together, are unable 

to control requirement driven cost growth and deliver the ships in 

the plan for the projected costs, the inevitable reductions in quantity will likely impact the Navy’s ability to reach the required fleet 

size and further jeopardize the industrial base. The committee 

notes that the current shipbuilding plan includes the cost of the 

SSBN (X) program and the committee encourages the Navy to 

closely scrutinize requirements for this program in order to minimize its impact on the recapitalization of the Navy’s battle force. 

Furthermore, the committee urges the Navy and the contractors 

to negotiate as expeditiously as possible fair and reasonable construction contracts for ships previously authorized in order to reduce uncertainty and maintain and foster affordability in the procurement of large surface combatants and other naval vessels. 

In reviewing the Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval 

Vessels in conjunction with recent program performance highlights, 

the committee notes the following observations and expectations: 

The stated requirement for amphibious ships is 38 vessels; however, the Long-Range Plan projects accepting moderate risk by having 33 ships by 2016, but then declining to 29 or 30 ships after 

2034. Although there have been improvements in recently delivered 

ships, cost and quality issues have been all too common in the procurement of large and medium amphibious ships, making an already constrained shipbuilding budget more difficult to execute. A 

new dock landing ship class, LSD(X), is important to the recapitalization of the amphibious force. The requirements for this ship 

must be closely validated to ensure affordability. The committee 

notes the Navy’s plan to have a gap year following the lead ship 

of the class and believes that this may help alleviate cost, schedule, 

and performance issues. Overall, the committee remains concerned 

with the Navy’s management of the amphibious ship accounts and 

expects continued close scrutiny of these programs by Navy leadership. 

In large surface combatants, the Navy’s last official report stated 

that the industrial base can only be effectively sustained if naval 

ship yards were building the equivalent of three DDG–51 destroyers per year, with additional work assumed at one of the yards. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
41 

Even if the Navy fully executes both of the large surface combatant 

programs of record in the near-term, the President’s fiscal year 

2011 budget request and future-years defense program propose to 

buy an average of 1.5 large surface combatants per year. Even at 

projected procurement rates, the number of cruisers and destroyers 

falls below the required level of 88 ships in 2027 and remains 

below that level for the following 13 years. At its worst, the number of large surface combatants is 21 ships below the expected requirement in 2034. 

The Navy has testified that continued demand for large surface 

combatants to meet forward presence and strike operations requirements coupled with emerging ballistic missile defense requirements drives the Navy to consider abandoning lesser priority missions for more recent, higher priority ones. In light of the current 

pressure on the large surface combatant force, the committee is 

concerned that the Navy’s projected rate of production is insufficient, and anticipates that the Navy will closely assess future demand for large surface combatants, and operational and additional 

risk to the industrial base of maintaining relatively low rates of 

procurement for large surface combatants. 

The committee remains concerned with the Navy’s ability to execute what it believes is an overly optimistic procurement strategy 

for large surface combatants. The truncation of the DDG–1000, the 

restart of the DDG–51 class and the proposed Flight III variant of 

the DDG–51 inject a great deal of instability into the SCN accounts. The Navy’s testimony before Congress has led this committee to identify six risk areas in the Navy’s plan for DDG–51s: 

(1) the availability of the Air and Missile Defense Radar; (2) the 

extent and cost of modifications to the underlying ship’s design 

package to support proposed changes to the ship; (3) increased limitation on service life margins of the early restart ships; (4) combat 

system software integration; (5) the overall complexity of various 

separate programs that need to converge for successful completion 

of the restart and Flight III programs; and (6) cost and schedule 

growth for the Aegis Combat System Modernization. The committee expects the Navy to keep it closely apprised of developments 

in these risk areas so that it can monitor appropriate risk mitigation efforts. 

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has made progress during the past year and the recent decision to move to a single design 

should improve affordability. The LCS fleet is expected to comprise 

55 vessels of the Navy’s 313–ship fleet force structure. Even modest 

cost growth in this large component of the fleet magnifies the problem of achieving that objective. The committee notes that the 

Navy’s acquisition strategy for the LCS program introduces competition for this class of ships and is therefore cautiously optimistic 

that this program is making progress. 

In summary, the committee considers the specialized shipbuilding industrial base for large surface combatants, amphibious 

ships, Navy auxiliary ships, and littoral vessels as a critical component of national security and expects the Department of Defense to 

appropriately sustain this industrial base. The committee expects 

the Department of the Navy to include these considerations as it 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
42 

incorporates the updated force structure assessment in the upcoming Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels. 

The committee understands that the Navy is conducting a comprehensive review of the shipbuilding industrial base and calls 

upon the Navy to update the committee on the scope and timeline 

for such a study. The committee understands the objective of the 

study is to identify the challenges facing the Navy and the associated shipbuilding industrial base and the strategies for mitigating 

the effects of those challenges. The committee expects that this 

study will inform its deliberations in connection with the fiscal year 

2012 budget. As a general proposition, the committee expects that 

the Department of Defense will provide the Navy with the support 

it needs to focus on the matters referred to above. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(43) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Limitation on use of funds for alternative propulsion system 

for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that, 

before spending any additional funds on the F136 engine that is 

being developed as an alternative propulsion system of the F–35 

Joint Strike Fighter program, the Secretary of Defense would have 

to certify that development of the alternate propulsion system: 

(1) will: 

(a) reduce the total life cycle-cycle costs of the F–35 

Joint Strike Fighter program; 

(b) improve the operational readiness of the fleet of F– 

35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and 

(2) will not: 

(a) disrupt the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program during the research, development, and procurement phases of 

the program; or 

(b) result in the procurement of fewer F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter aircraft during the life cycle of the program. 

Limitation on use of funds by Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency for operation of National Cyber Range 

(sec. 212) 

The budget request included $10.0 million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in PE 35103E for the 

National Cyber Range (NCR) in the Cyber Security Initiative. In 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the conferees noted concern with DARPA that it 

had not yet identified a transition partner for the NCR, nor were 

there funds programmed in any other organization’s budget to support continued operations of the NCR. The committee remains concerned about the lack of a transition path. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to prohibit any 

expenditure of funds for the NCR until 90 days after the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics submits a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives on plans for transitioning the 

NCR to sustainment and operations. Furthermore, funds expended 

on the NCR 90 days after the report is submitted can only be for 

research and development activities to ensure and assess the 

functionality of the NCR. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

This required report should determine the possible options for 

transition recipients, and for each option described, should clearly 

articulate the steps that should be taken, proposed milestones, and 

funding necessary for full transition. Included in the range of options, the report should consider the establishment of a government 

consortium of the NCR as a government-owned government-operated, or a government-owned contractor operated facility. 

Enhancement of Department of Defense support of science, 

mathematics, and engineering education (sec. 213) 

Section 2192 of title 10, United States Code, provides the Secretary of Defense certain authorities in support of improving education in the scientific, mathematics, and engineering skills—commonly referred to as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)—necessary to meet the long-term national defense 

needs of the United States for personnel proficient in such skills. 

Pursuant to these STEM-related authorities, the committee commends the Department of Defense for recently developing and releasing a STEM Education and Outreach Strategic Plan Framework, and looks forward to its implementation. 

To further the important strategic goal of ensuring that our Nation and the Department has an adequate future talent pool of scientists and engineers for national competitiveness and defense 

needs, the committee recommends a provision to section 2192 of 

title 10, United States Code, permitting the Secretary of Defense 

to carry out these activities through the military departments, 

which in many cases have close working relationships between 

their research laboratories and local academic institutions. 

The committee also recommends a provision to section 2194 of 

title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense 

to permit the directors of defense laboratories to enter into cooperative agreements with appropriate entities to assist laboratory personnel in STEM-related activities with local academic institutions. 

Program for research, development, and deployment of advanced ground vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and 

components (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a cost-shared program, in cooperation with industry, academia, and other federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, to develop and deploy advanced 

technology ground vehicles and their component parts. The purposes of this program would be to maximize collective investments 

in development and deployment of advanced ground vehicle technologies and to identify and support technological advances critical 

to sustained, long-term development of ground vehicle technologies 

for use by the Department of Defense (DOD). 

In carrying out such a program, the committee recommends that 

DOD work in close collaboration with federal and non-federal partners to leverage investments in ground vehicle power and propulsion technologies and accelerate technology innovation and commercialization. The committee recommends DOD consider a variety 

of joint opportunities including research and development initiatives, pilot programs, and establishment of public-private partnerVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

ships such as research centers, prototype facilities, and test beds. 

Such a program should include research and development and deployment of technologies including, but not limited to, batteries, advanced materials, power electronics, fuel cells and fuel cell systems, 

hybrid systems, and advanced engines. 

Demonstration and pilot projects on cybersecurity (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in support of and in coordination with the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, to develop and conduct pilot demonstrations to determine the potential contribution of commercial 

technology and capabilities to the defense of government and defense industrial base cyber networks and systems, and various 

means by which the government can acquire or apply those commercial technologies and capabilities. 

The committee strongly supports the potential piloting projects 

recently developed within the executive branch, and recommends 

authorization of $30.0 million to execute the pilots described in this 

section. The committee is heartened that the administration is finally recognizing the enormous potential role for the private sector 

in cybersecurity. The funding would be authorized in line 196, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 

32019K. 

The committee is persuaded that the major telecommunications 

and Internet Service Providers, collectively, have unparalleled visibility into global networks which would enable them to detect cyber 

intrusions and attacks as they are forming and transiting towards 

their targets. These companies also already possess potent tools 

and techniques for countering these attacks in order to defend their 

own infrastructure and the networks and applications of their customers. However, while each of the major companies possesses impressive visibility, it is only by combining their collective network 

visibility that a comprehensive, global warning and assessment capability can be achieved. Furthermore, while these companies already share information about threats and problems, they do so on 

an ad hoc and non-real-time basis. An integrated attack warning 

and response capability requires an engineered, real-time exchange 

and consolidation of threat information and response capabilities. 

The committee believes that it is essential for the administration 

to determine how a commercial consortium could be formed, what 

the government’s role would be in establishing and managing such 

a consortium, and how the government could and should participate. The committee is aware that there are significant legal and 

policy issues that would need to be carefully worked through, including possible anti-trust concerns and legal restrictions on the 

sharing of the content of communications with the government, 

even if that content is malicious software. The committee’s intent 

is that the administration proceed as far as it can as soon as it can, 

on a pilot basis, but completely within the confines of existing policy and legal constraints. The administration should not wait to 

begin those elements of this pilot that can be pursued right away 

until it has sorted out and resolved all the issues associated with 

a fully operational commercial consortium that is integrated into 

government security operations centers. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 

The committee stresses that this commercial consortium pilot depends on sponsorship from the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), and that the DOD role would be to support DHS. 

The committee is also very interested in the potential for commercially outsourced, managed security services to rapidly increase 

the security of key elements of the Defense Industrial Base. If this 

pilot is successful, it could provide a model for defending other privately owned critical infrastructure, as well as federal departments 

and agencies, consistent with the Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Services program executed by the General Services Administration (GSA), which now includes managed security services under 

the Networx contract vehicle. 

This model also could be easily extended to encompass outsourcing of network services and computing, including cloud computing. 

The committee believes that there is evidence to support the contention that such comprehensive outsourcing would provide better 

service and far better security, at equal or even reduced cost. The 

committee notes that GSA achieved precisely these results through 

its own cloud outsourcing program. 

The committee hopes that these two pilots could demonstrate 

that there are means to dramatically improve the Nation’s cybersecurity capabilities rapidly, affordably, and without taxing the limited abilities of DHS and other federal organizations to manage 

complex systems acquisitions. The models demonstrated through 

these pilots also could complement, and be integrated with, the 

Einstein 3 program, and existing defense-in-depth cybersecurity capabilities within the Department of Defense, the Department of 

State, the Department of Justice, and elsewhere. 

A third pilot would involve creating a commercial construct and 

processes that would permit DOD to rapidly acquire operational or 

technical cyber capabilities from the private sector, to incentivize 

commercial investments in technology and capabilities, and to facilitate the transition of these capabilities into both government 

programs and commercial markets. A major goal would be to 

achieve agility in exploiting innovations and closing vulnerabilities. 

The committee expects that this pilot would contribute to the cyber 

acquisition strategy that would be required by sec. 933 of this Act. 

The provision would require DOD to conduct a fourth pilot whose 

purpose would be to develop a process to enable the evaluation and 

comparison of commercial cyber security products and services 

across a common set of standards and a common taxonomy. The 

committee intends that the Department exploit the work of the private sector’s development of the Consensus Audit Guidelines and 

the security controls developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. These guidelines and controls are based on 

the most significant attack patterns, and could form a framework 

for organizing and integrating commercial products and services. 

The committee understands that these pilots will take some time 

to initiate and complete, but expects the Department to be aggressive, in keeping with the Department’s own declared anxiety about 

the rising cybersecurity threat and the need for forceful corrective 

action. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
47 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Matters 

Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense issues, including: 1) 

that the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe is an appropriate response to the missile threat from Iran, 

and that it is consistent with the guidance from Congress in 2009; 

2) that the PAA is not intended to, and will not, provide a missile 

defense capability relative to Russia’s deterrent missile force, or diminish strategic stability with Russia; 3) to support efforts of the 

U.S. Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to 

cooperate with Russia on missile defense relative to Iranian missile 

threats; 4) that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system currently provides adequate defensive capability against potential future long-range missile threats from Iran; 5) that the United States 

should continue to improve and deploy missile defense systems to 

defend itself against limited attack and to strengthen regional stability; 6) that, as part of this effort, the Department of Defense 

should pursue the development, testing, and deployment of operationally effective versions of all variants of the Standard Missile– 

3 (SM–3) for all four phases of the Phased Adaptive Approach to 

missile defense in Europe; 7) that the SM–3 Block IIB interceptor 

should be capable of addressing potential future long-range missiles from Iran; 8) that there are no constraints contained in the 

New START Treaty on the development or deployment of effective 

missile defenses; and 9) that the Department should continue the 

development and testing of the two-stage Ground-Based Interceptor 

as a hedge against potential technical challenges with the development of the SM–3 Block IIB interceptor. 

Repeal of prohibition on certain contracts by the Missile Defense Agency with foreign entities (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

222 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 

1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100–180). That section prohibits the 

use of Department of Defense (DOD) funds for entering into a contract with a foreign government or firm for research, development, 

test, or evaluation in connection with strategic missile defense. 

As has been the case in recent years, and as the Ballistic Missile 

Defense Review of February 2010 made clear, robust international 

cooperation is an essential component of the U.S. ballistic missile 

defense program. DOD has a growing number of important cooperative projects with foreign nations, such as the joint U.S.-Japanese 

development of the Standard Missile 3, Block II A interceptor missile, or the joint U.S.-Israeli development of several ballistic missile 

defense systems. 

Section 222 is now contrary to the policy, practice, and intent of 

the United States, and it hinders the ability of the Missile Defense 

Agency to contract directly with foreign governments and entities. 

Repealing that section would enhance the opportunities for international cooperation on missile defense. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
48 

Medium Extended Air Defense System (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of any fiscal year 2011 funds for the Medium Extended 

Air Defense System (MEADS) until several conditions are met: 1) 

the Department of Defense (DOD) has completed the Critical Design Review and the System Program Review for the MEADS program and made a decision on how or whether to proceed with 

MEADS or an alternative to MEADS; 2) the Secretary of Defense 

has submitted a report to the congressional defense committees 

providing a detailed explanation of the decision concerning the future of MEADS; and 3) 60 days have elapsed following the receipt 

of the Secretary’s report. The provision would specify a number of 

elements to be included in the Secretary’s report. 

The committee is deeply concerned with the significant uncertainties surrounding the MEADS program, a tri-national development effort between the United States, Germany, and Italy, to develop a next-generation lower-tier air and missile defense system. 

As the system approaches a Critical Design Review scheduled for 

August 2010, it is estimated to be about $1.0 billion over budget 

and about 18 months behind schedule. There are also concerns that 

MEADS will not meet all its Army requirements, including the 

ability to be transported by C–130 aircraft. 

Furthermore, the Army and DOD have decided that, in order to 

meet their needs for integrated air and missile defense in an interoperable fashion with other U.S. systems, the U.S. MEADS command, control, and battle management system must be the Integrated Battle Control System (IBCS), which is not part of the original MEADS program agreement. There is also concern that the interceptor missile for MEADS, the Missile Segment Enhancement (a 

modification of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile), may 

have technical or schedule risks associated with an aggressive test 

schedule, which may delay its availability for MEADS. 

In addition, our international partners may have reservations 

about proceeding with the previously planned MEADS system. The 

German parliament is seeking information on less expensive alternatives to MEADS, and it appears that Italy may not procure the 

MEADS system. 

All these factors suggest that the program could be on an unstable path, including the possibility of significant modification or 

even termination. Accordingly, the committee believes that DOD 

and the Army should proceed cautiously and deliberately with 

MEADS in order to avoid making decisions that may be unnecessarily costly or that may need to be reversed. 

In this regard, the committee cautions the Army against spending fiscal year 2010 funds for MEADS efforts that may be reversed, 

or that may require additional termination fees if the program is 

later terminated. 

Acquisition accountability reports on the Ballistic Missile 

Defense System (sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to establish and maintain an acquisition baseline for each program element of the Ballistic Missile 

Defense System, with specified elements, and to provide annual reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
49 

ports to the congressional defense committees on the acquisition 

baselines, starting in February 2011. The reports would also include a description of the activities of the Missile Defense Executive Board for the preceding fiscal year. 

The committee notes that Congress has previously urged the 

MDA to develop and report acquisition baselines on its program 

elements to improve management, accountability, and transparency, but MDA has not developed such baselines previously, despite commitments to do so. The Government Accountability Office 

has also recommended numerous times that MDA should develop 

and use acquisition baselines for cost, schedule, and performance in 

order to permit objective assessments of their progress on missile 

defense acquisition programs. The lack of MDA acquisition baselines has been a significant impediment to adequate oversight of 

MDA programs, and has made MDA activities much less transparent and accountable than other Major Defense Acquisition Programs. 

The committee recognizes that the current leadership of the Missile Defense Agency has taken the initiative to develop acquisition 

baselines and use them as a central management tool. The committee commends MDA’s leadership for taking this important step, 

and looks forward to receiving the baselines and using them to assess progress on MDA programs. The committee believes it is important to require such baselines in law to ensure that they will 

be an enduring feature of MDA program management and oversight in the future. 

Independent review and assessment of the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense system (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to select an entity outside the Department of 

Defense to conduct an independent review and assessment of the 

Department’s plans for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 

(GMD) system. Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this 

Act, the outside entity would submit to the Secretary and the congressional defense committees a report containing the results of the 

review and assessment, and any recommendations for how the Department could improve upon its plans for the GMD system. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Army basic research 

The budget request included $406.9 million in Army basic research to develop a foundational scientific and technological understanding to solve Army-unique problems and develop knowledge for 

an uncertain future. The Army’s basic research program makes investments in a number of thrust areas ranging from biotechnology 

to quantum information science. Consistent with these research 

thrusts, the committee recommends increases in PE 61102A of $6.0 

million for advanced energy storage research and research into 

ultracold forms of matter for future navigation systems. In PE 

61103A, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
50 

new lightweight materials for vehicle protection. The committee 

also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 61104A for materials processing research. 

Army materials technologies 

The budget request included $29.9 million in PE 62105A for applied research on materials technology. The committee notes that 

the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Department of Defense (DOD) Energy Strategy recommended that DOD continue to 

invest in mobile, in-theater synthetic fuels processes that would address DOD’s fuel problem by reducing battlespace fuel demand. 

Consistent with that recommendation, the committee recommends 

an additional $1.5 million for the research on advanced biofuels. 

The Army’s current armor development technology objective 

seeks to develop lightweight, affordable, manufacturable armor protection against a variety of threats. In support of that objective, the 

committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for applied composite materials research; $2.0 million for research on high 

strength glass fibers for armor applications; and $1.5 million for 

lighter body armor technology development. Lastly, the committee 

recommends $2.0 million for PE 63005A for advanced multifunctional armor technology, $1.5 million for PE 63001A for moldable 

fabric armor, and $2.0 million in PE 63734A for improved projectile 

and hardened structure testing. 

In addition to armor and other direct warfighting applications, 

lighter and stronger materials can also improve other logistical and 

support-related systems. To further these capabilities, the committee recommends $2.0 million in PE 63005A to advance the development of composite shelters for the maintenance of tactical 

ground vehicles. 

The 2007 report on the Defense Nanotechnology Research Program indicated that the Department is working to increase investments in nanomanufacturing since ‘‘this area remains a significant 

barrier to the commercialization of nanomaterials and nanotechnology-based products.’’ The committee recommends an additional $4.0 

million for PE 62105A for research on manufacturing of nanosensors for military applications. 

Unmanned aerial systems research and development 

The budget request included $43.5 million in PE 62211A towards 

applied research of aviation technologies, both manned and unmanned. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have seen dramatically 

increased utilization during recent operations, but there are shortfalls in higher performing propulsion systems and integration 

issues that remain to be addressed. In support of these efforts, the 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62211A 

for unmanned aerial system integration. In addition, the committee 

recommends an increase of $8.5 million in PE 63003A for improved 

UAS engine development, rotorcraft corrosion reduction efforts, and 

improving capabilities to more rapidly insert new aviation technologies, including enhanced systems to detect hostile fire. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
51 

Advanced concepts and simulation 

The budget request included $20.6 million in PE 62308A for advanced concepts and simulation research. The 2006 National Research Council study on ‘‘Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis’’ recommended research investment on video game-based training and simulation to further training and education activities in 

the Department of Defense. Consistent with that recommendation, 

the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for cognitive 

modeling and simulation research to support tactical decision-making by military planners in training and operational scenarios. 

Ground vehicle research 

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and 

$89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and 

automotive technologies. The Army has established a technology 

objective to develop advanced survivability systems for the protection of crew and passengers in current and future tactical wheeled 

vehicles. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an 

increase of $12.0 million in PE 63005A for development of advanced ground vehicle survivability technologies including, but not 

limited to, external armor solutions, threat sensors, and other defensive measures, and $2.0 million in PE 62105A and $2.9 million 

in PE 78045A for research on advanced composite and alloy materials for vehicle armor. 

The Army has established a technology objective to develop and 

demonstrate wheeled vehicle power and mobility technologies, including commercial engines adapted to military requirements that 

reduce cost, increase efficiency, and improve reliability. To support 

these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE 63005A for development of advanced power electronics, 

improved thermal management, and development of other engine 

subsystems. To better understand and prevent engine and vehicle 

wear, the committee recommends $2.0 million in PE 62601A for research on engine and transmission friction and wear. 

Robotic systems 

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and 

$89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and 

automotive technologies. The committee notes the increasing use 

and value of robotic systems on the battlefield to perform counterimprovised explosive device maneuvers; intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance; and other tactical missions. The committee 

also notes that section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) established a goal that by 2015, one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles acquired through the Army’s Future Combat Systems 

program will be unmanned. In support of these goals, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 62601A for 

the development of robotics systems, vehicle autonomy, and advanced energy and propulsion systems for robotic vehicles. The 

committee also recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63005A for the development of autonomous and connected vehicle 

technologies for logistics, force protection, and other applications. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
52 

Vehicle energy and power programs 

The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 62601A and $89.5 million in PE 63005A for combat vehicle research and development. The committee has been focused on and supportive of efforts to increase the energy efficiency and performance of combat 

and tactical vehicles through the application of advanced energy 

technologies. These technologies can also enable capabilities such 

as silent watch, extended range, and the provision of mobile electric power, all of which serve to significantly enhance the operational capability of warfighters. To support the Army’s goals in 

this area, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in 

PE 62601A for hybrid electric vehicle testing and hybrid truck development. The committee also recommends $1.5 million for applied research on advanced materials for energy storage, conversion, and distribution. 

The committee notes that the Army has been experimenting with 

a variety of hybrid systems to support Future Combat Systems, 

trucks, and light tactical vehicles. Consistent with the development 

of hybrid engines and systems to support military applications, the 

committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63005A 

for improved auxiliary power, battery systems, and overall power 

management. The committee recommends $12.0 million for improvements in vehicle electronics and their underlying architecture 

for more advanced and efficient systems for the warfighter. The 

committee also notes that hybrid engines and plug-in technologies 

hold particular promise for use in theater and recommends an increase of $6.7 million for development in PE 63005A. 

Reactive armor technologies 

The budget request included $60.3 million in PE 62618A for ballistics technologies. The Army has established a technology objective to develop armor and vehicle structure technologies to influence all future generations of combat vehicles. To support this effort and enhance industrial production capacity, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research on reactive armor 

systems. 

Advanced detection research 

The budget request included $5.3 million in PE 62622A for applied research towards improving personnel and platform survivability. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to 

PE 62622A for development of new technologies for the standoff detection of radionuclides. In addition, the committee recommends an 

increase of $2.0 million in PE 62234N for the development of new 

materials for focal planes in infrared detectors and an increase of 

$3.0 million in PE 62712A for improved multispectral imaging 

technology for explosives detection. 

Acoustic sensors systems 

The budget request included $42.6 million in PE 62624A for applied research on weapons and munitions technology. The Army’s 

Sensor and Information Fusion for Improved Hostile Fire Situational Awareness technology objective seeks to develop enhanced 

acoustic and other sensors to detect, locate, and classify a wide 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
53 

range of threats. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for continued development of 

gunfire detection and location systems. Similarly, the committee 

recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 63710A for situation 

awareness research and technology development. 

Military engineering technology 

The budget request included $79.2 million in PE 62784A for military engineering technologies. The Army has established a technology objective to improve battlespace and terrain awareness for 

forces by creating actionable information from terrain, atmospheric, 

and weather impacts and their effects on Army assets. In support 

of this objective, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for geosciences and atmospheric research. 

Medical and warfighter technologies 

The budget request included $27.7 million in PE 62786A for 

warfighter technology and $96.8 million in PE 62787A for applied 

research on medical technologies. To support development of combat casualty care capabilities, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 62787A for research on explosion blast 

interactions with protective equipment and personnel. In addition, 

the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

62787A for new modeling and treatment approaches for traumatic 

brain and spinal cord injuries, $3.0 million in PE 64771N for retinal transplant technologies for vision restoration in blast trauma 

victims, and $1.0 million in PE 62786A for research to enhance 

combat ration shelf life and nutrition. 

Thermal resistant fiber research 

The budget request included $27.7 million in PE 62786A for 

warfighter technologies, including those to improve solider and 

small combat unit survivability. In order to help address the threat 

of burn injuries to deployed warfighters, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for thermal resistant fiber research. 

Army advanced medical research and technologies 

The budget request included $71.5 million in PE 63002A for advanced medical technologies. The Army’s medical research program 

on this effort focuses on warfighter medical protection performance 

standards that demonstrate and transition technologies and tools 

associated with biomechanical-based health risks, injury assessment and prediction, soldier survivability, and performance during 

continuous operations. Consistent with these efforts, the committee 

recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of biosensor controller and monitor systems, $2.5 million for body temperature conditioning technologies, $2.0 million for enhanced medical training, and $2.0 million for eye trauma research. 

The committee commends the Army and Department of Defense 

for its work developing advanced prosthetics technologies for use by 

wounded warriors. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for lower limb prosthetics deVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
54 

velopment and an additional $4.0 million for improved prosthetics 

manufacturing. 

Telemedicine is becoming an important area of medical technology in need of further development to continue to deliver quality 

care to our troops in the battlefield and at home. In support of developing telemedicine tools, the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million for telemedicine research and $3.0 million for 

handheld telemedicine device development. The committee further recommends an additional $5.5 million for 

research on the integration of medical technologies to address combat casualty care issues and $12.0 million to support research on 

Gulf War illnesses. 

Army weapon systems sustainment 

The budget request included $89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. Many of 

the legacy systems utilized by the Army are decades old and require parts for frequent repairs. As the systems age, often the parts 

and assemblies are no longer being manufactured, making them 

expensive and difficult to locate. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63005A to help reduce the life cycle 

costs of legacy Army systems by addressing the costs associated 

with diminishing manufacturing and material sources through reengineering, substitute part testing and evaluation, and additional 

research. In addition, the committee recommends an additional 

$1.5 million in PE 62105A for weapon systems repair technologies. 

Force projection technology 

The budget request included $89.5 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE 63005A for 

critical improvements to force projection technologies. Thrust areas 

include research, development, and engineering support for Army 

fuels and lubricants, water purification and handling, military 

bridging, material handling, mechanical counter-mine and counterimprovised explosive device equipment, and other equipment to 

support Army requirements for the mobilization and support of 

military personnel in deployed locations. The committee also recommends an additional $4.5 million in PE 63005A specifically for 

improved water generation and purification systems. 

Training and simulation systems 

The budget request included $15.3 million in PE 63015A for 

next-generation training and simulation systems. To enhance training for battlefield lifesaving skills, the committee recommends an 

additional $1.0 million for combat medic training systems. 

Aircraft survivability systems 

The budget request included $18.4 million in PE 63270A for electronic warfare technologies. The Army has established a technology 

objective to develop and integrate threat warning sensors and countermeasures to protect aircraft against small arms, rocket propelled 

grenades, man-portable air defense systems, and other threats. 

Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends an addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
55 

tional $3.0 million for development of laser technologies to improve 

aircraft survivability against missile threats. 

Missile artillery advanced technology development 

The budget request included $84.5 million in PE 63313A for missile and rocket advanced technology development. 

The committee is aware that after an investment of $1.5 billion 

over several years the Defense Department will cancel the NonLine of Sight Launch System (NLOS–LS) program. This 

cancelation was due to performance shortfalls, high projected costs 

for each missile, and the availability of other technologies to meet 

the Army’s precision artillery fire requirements. 

The committee notes that ground launched rocket (unguided) and 

missile (guided) artillery systems have been part of the Army’s mix 

of indirect fire capabilities for generations. Despite the cancelation 

of the NLOS–LS program, the Army retains an appropriate interest in technology development and experimentation involving modern missile artillery of all sizes, ranges, and targeting capabilities. 

Additionally, the committee understands that upon termination of 

the NLOS–LS program the Army will own the technical data rights 

to that system’s container launch unit. This container launch unit 

could provide the basis for a deliberate, comprehensive, and open 

development and experimentation effort taking advantage of a variety of technologies with the potential to overcome the performance 

shortfalls and cost challenges of the cancelled NLOS–LS. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 63313A for missile and rocket advanced technology development. 

Military engineering systems 

The budget request included $27.4 million in PE 63734A for advanced military engineering technologies. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for permafrost research to enhance the understanding and implications of permafrost-related 

geophysical phenomenology on defense infrastructure and systems 

for current and future operations. 

Consistent with efforts to improve Department of Defense energy 

security and efficiency, the committee recommends an additional 

$8.0 million in PE 63734A for development of solar cell technologies for use at military installations. In addition, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 61153N for research 

using nanomaterials for solar cells. 

Adaptive robotic technology 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for development of adaptive robotic technology to improve integrated missile 

defense capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million in PE 63305A for development of adaptive robotic technology for Army missile defense and space mission requirements, 

including processes, tools, models, and simulations for improved integration of complex functions and operations. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
56 

Advanced environmental controls 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for advanced environmental control systems. The committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63305A for the development of 

thermal management control systems that can support sensors and 

electronic systems that operate in the harsh environmental conditions required by missile defense systems. The committee notes 

that advanced environmental control systems have applicability to 

a variety of military systems that operate in harsh environments. 

Advanced imaging technologies 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for advanced missile and rocket technologies. The Army has a technical 

objective to develop tactical information technologies for assured 

network operations and to enable battlefield information sharing. 

Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for imaging and networking research to enable rapid and precise target discrimination and identification. 

Alternative power technology 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for alternative power technologies. The committee recommends an increase 

of $2.0 million in PE 63305A for development of alternative power 

technologies for missile defense and other military applications. 

The Army relies on fossil fuel to generate power for forward deployed missile defense systems, including their sensors, command 

and control, and communications systems. Such reliance is both expensive and logistically burdensome. Alternative energy sources 

could provide significant benefits for missile defense and other military applications. 

Hostile fire detection for helicopters 

The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 64270A for aircraft survivability equipment development, but included no funds 

for hostile fire detection. The committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million in PE 64270A for hostile fire detection development 

for helicopters. 

Non-line of sight launch system 

The budget request included $81.2 million in PE 64646A for the 

non-line of sight launch system (NLOS–LS). The committee is 

aware that in April 2010 the Army recommended termination of 

the NLOS–LS program. This was due to performance shortfalls, 

high projected costs for each missile, and the availability of other 

technologies to meet precision artillery fire requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $81.2 million in PE 

64646A for the NLOS–LS. 

XM1125 smoke projectile 

The budget request included $24.3 million in PE 64802A for 

weapons and munitions engineering and development, but provided 

no funds for artillery munitions development. The committee recVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
57 

ommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64802A for development 

of the XM1125 155mm howitzer smoke projectile based upon a 

new, safer chemical content. 

Paladin Integrated Management program 

The budget request included $53.6 million in PE 64854A for Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) system development. The PIM 

program would upgrade and extend the life of the Army’s current 

M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer system. The committee is 

concerned that this important artillery system upgrade for the 

Army’s heavy force should have the resources to reduce technical 

risk and recover from this delay. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 64854A for PIM technology development. 

Trojan Swarm 

The budget request included $3.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in PE 33032A for the Trojan 

program. The committee strongly supports the Trojan Swarm initiative and applauds the Army’s innovative approach to rapidly 

fielding substantially greater communications capacity and agile 

networking capabilities for deployed ground forces in Afghanistan. 

Theater commanders and the Army leadership understand that 

this conflict’s center of gravity is located where soldiers interact 

with the people of Afghanistan. Traditionally, the focus for Army 

communications and intelligence support was on brigade and higher echelons; this counterinsurgency campaign requires that focus to 

be on battalion and lower echelons. The Army, with support from 

the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, is 

fielding a robust 3G cellular network for ground forces, for both forward operating bases (FOB) and mobile patrols, connected via airborne and satellite communications nodes. 

The committee recommends that the Army work with other Department of Defense organizations, the interagency, and the Afghan Ministry of Telecommunications, to connect its FOBs via 

spurs to the backbone fiber-optic network nearing completion in Afghanistan. The committee also recommends that the Army incorporate passive electronic surveillance capabilities, both ground- and 

air-based, into the Trojan Swarm architecture. The committee recommends authorization of an additional $10.0 million for these activities. 

Army test and evaluation programs 

The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 65602A for technical test instrumentation and targets. The committee notes that 

this account and related accounts fund the operations, 

sustainment, and modernization of Army test ranges. These ranges 

are critical to the delivery of operational systems to deployed forces 

since they provide the facilities and infrastructure for both the developmental and operational testing of defense systems to validate 

their operational effectiveness, suitability, and reliability. 

The committee notes that the Dugway Proving Grounds is the 

Department of Defense’s premier testing facility for chemical and 

biological defense systems. To support the continued development 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
58 

of these capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 

million for field test equipment improvements. 

To help address the integration of test and training activities between Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air 

Force Base, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million 

for tools for frequency management, airspace deconfliction, and 

real-time monitoring of ranges. 

The budget request also included $4.7 million in PE 65605A for 

the Department of Defense High Energy Laser Test Facility 

(HELSTF). The committee notes that the Army planned to use the 

facility beginning in 2010 for tests associated with the High Energy 

Laser Technology Demonstrator program. To support these activities, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 

HELSTF. 

Enhanced Army energy testing 

The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 65602A for 

Army technical test instrumentation and targets. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 65602A to support 

energy testing that would integrate renewable energy technologies, 

including solar, geothermal, biomass, nuclear, wind, and waste-toenergy, into a central storage system that routes the energy to a 

smart distribution and monitoring system. 

Unserviceable ammunition demilitarization through chemical dissolution 

The budget request included $61.1 million in PE 65805A for munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety, but provided no 

funds for unserviceable ammunition demilitarization through 

chemical dissolution. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.6 million in PE 65805A to design and construct a prototype 

chemical dissolution demilitarization system for the disposal of 

high risk, high cost, unserviceable, or obsolete ammunition. 

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades 

The budget request included $61.1 million in PE 78045A for enditem industrial preparedness activities, but provided no funds for 

ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades and condition monitoring of helicopter components. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 78045A for ultrasonic inspection of helicopter rotor blades and condition monitoring of helicopter components to develop advanced ultrasonic techniques to significantly reduce inspection time and increase aircraft availability. 

Navy 

University research initiatives 

The budget request included $108.7 million in PE 61103N for 

university research initiatives. The Navy’s survivability and selfdefense science and technology focus area has a specific objective 

to develop advanced construction materials for survivable platforms. In support of that objective, the committee recommends an 

additional $1.0 million in PE 61103N for blast and impact resistant 

structures. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
59 

Energetics research 

The budget request included $98.2 million in PE 62114N for applied research on power projection technologies. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research on advanced energetic materials to support efforts to counter new types of asymmetric threats such as chemical-biological weapons as well as increasing capabilities to defeat deeply buried targets. 

Advanced energy research 

The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 62123N towards applied research on a broad range of technologies focused on 

all naval platforms and their protection, including advanced energy 

and power systems. The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 

million in PE 62123N for advanced wind energy research. In addition, the committee recommends similar increases for energy research in the other services. For the Air Force, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62102F for research on 

advanced heat exchangers. For the Army, the committee recommends an increase in PE 62075A of $2.5 million for portable 

solar power generators, an increase of $2.0 million for silicon carbide devices for quieter power generators, and an increase of $2.0 

million for integrating nanoscale technologies into improved batteries. The committee also recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in PE 61111D8Z for cryo-cooled superconducting systems to improve the efficiencies and integration of thermal management systems. 

Navy force protection research 

The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 62123N for applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy’s power 

and energy science and technology focus area has a goal to develop 

efficient power conversion technologies with a wide range of energy 

sources to provide reliable power for a range of naval systems. To 

support this goal, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 

million for research on integrated power systems for future platforms that have all-electric propulsion and weapon loads. 

The Navy’s survivability and self-defense science and technology 

focus area seeks to enhance force protection by using innovative 

sensors to help detect and defeat incoming attacks. In support of 

that initiative, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for the development of port security sensors for under-hull inspection of ships. 

Consistent with the Navy’s platform mobility technology objectives to develop new advanced platform designs supporting new directions in naval warfare, such as increased agility, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million for improved design and 

development tools for high-speed boats constructed from advanced 

composites. 

Warfighter sustainment technologies 

The budget request included $113.7 million in PE 62236N for applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. The committee notes the continued need for optimization of composite materials for use in a range of maritime vessels and equipment. For 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
60 

this reason, the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million 

in PE 62236N for composite material optimization research. 

In support of continuing Navy and Department of Defense initiatives to reduce corrosion costs, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for efforts on the development of sustainment 

and remanufacturing processes, asset health and logistics management techniques, and materials aging and corrosion abatement 

technologies. 

The Department of Defense anti-tamper program seeks to deter 

the reverse engineering and exploitation of critical technology in 

order to impede technology transfer, stop alteration of system capability, and prevent the development of countermeasures to U.S. systems. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 62236N for research on anti-reverse engineering nanodevices, as well as an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

65790D8Z for research on anti-tamper software. 

Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research 

The budget request included $49.5 million in PE 62435N for applied research on ocean warfighting environments. The Navy’s platform mobility science and technology focus area includes the goal 

of development and delivery of system and equipment technologies 

to improve autonomous and unmanned vehicle mobility. In support 

of this goal, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

for advanced unmanned undersea vehicle research. For undersea 

warfare applied research in PE 62747N, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for accelerated development 

of an acoustic search glider. 

In order to support Navy efforts to enhance the understanding of 

optical propagation within challenging ocean environments in support of mine countermeasures and underwater autonomous network communications, the committee recommends an additional 

$1.0 million for research on extended range underwater imaging 

sensors and optical communications networks. 

Mobile intelligence and tracking systems 

The budget request included $117.9 million in PE 63114N for advanced technologies for power projection. The Navy has a science 

and technology objective to develop data fusion and analysis technologies for actionable intelligence generation to defeat adaptive irregular threats in complex environments. In support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on data processing and fusion technologies to support multiple simultaneous detections, tracking, identification, and targeting of asymmetric and mobile threats in combat operations. 

Formable textiles 

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

development of formable textiles for complex shaped aerospace 

composite applications. 

This effort has supported the development of infrastructure necessary to provide a stable, consistent environment to support an 

aircraft manufacturing program utilizing materials which hold 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
61 

promise for reducing manufacturing costs of aerospace-grade, complex curved structural composite parts by enabling, via the materials, improved formability, greater utilization of automated manufacturing technologies as opposed to the current labor intensive 

hand lay-up methods. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to enable 

further development of formable textiles for complex shaped aerospace composite applications. 

Mobile repair capability 

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding to 

develop advanced coating process technologies for naval aviation 

platforms and components. 

Previous development work has shown that direct metal deposition (DMD) technology may be used to repair of a variety of worn/ 

corroded Navy aircraft components. In fact, the Navy has successfully demonstrated repairs on high-strength steel and various other 

alloy materials in a laboratory environment using these processes. 

The committee believes that the Navy should continue developing 

this DMD technology to expand the repair capability to allow deployments of this repair technology directly on Navy vessels. Such 

an expansion of the program would allow Navy personnel to make 

local repairs, thus reducing the demand on shore based maintenance operations and increasing operational availability. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

for developing a mobile capability for making DMD repairs on 

naval equipment. 

Rare earth alternatives 

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding to 

develop domestic sources of rare earth materials that could be used 

to produce permanent magnet motors. 

Application of permanent magnet motors has the potential to expand significantly within the Department. At this time, we do not 

have access to domestic sources of the raw materials for these 

magnets. The committee believes that the Department needs to 

identify and develop domestically produced alternative materials, 

material technology, and manufacturing methods involving rare 

earth elements. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $3.0 million to support such a program. 

Single generator operations 

The budget request included $61.9 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

development of a lithium battery technology that could replace one 

of the three generators normally in operation or reserve aboard all 

large Navy ships. 

If lithium battery technology could be scaled up to a capacity of 

roughly 2.5 megawatts, such a battery would replace one of the 

three ship service generators normally in operation or in reserve 

aboard all surface combatants. Such a battery system could provide 

a lower cost, higher quality source of electrical power that would 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
62 

replace redundant back-up power sources dedicated to subsystems 

throughout the ship. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to enable 

the development of such lithium battery technology. 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System 

The budget request included $40.9 million in PE 63235N for the 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System. The committee recommends no funding for this program. The committee notes that 

there is still no demonstrated user for the concept, moreover the 

cost of implementing the concept would be very high and require 

additional expensive user equipment. It is also not clear how the 

approach is being considered or how the required hardware modifications are being coordinated with the Joint Tactical Radio System open architecture approach. 

Hybrid heavy lift logistics vehicle 

The budget request included $98.3 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology developments, but included no funding to develop any concepts for providing innovative 

tools for supporting force and their logistics. 

The committee is aware of a proposal to establish a program to 

engineer, design and test key components, and achieve a critical 

design review of a very large hybrid aircraft that could be used as 

a heavy lift transport in wartime. The project could help address 

the U.S. military’s future airlift requirements by providing a highly-efficient hybrid airlifter that will be able to transport a complete 

combat force (troops, vehicles, helicopters, and supplies) great distances without loss of unit cohesion or physical readiness to fight. 

Hybrid heavy lift aircraft have the potential of being more fuel efficient than fixed-wing aircraft by burning as little as 40 percent of 

the fuel as a traditional fixed-wing aircraft, when compared on a 

fuel consumed on a ‘‘per ton/mile’’ basis. 

The committee believes this possible development is worth exploring to increase the options for meeting such logistics requirements in the future, and recommends an increase of $1.5 million 

for that purpose. 

Lighter-than-air research platform 

The budget request included $98.3 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology developments, but included no funding to develop long distance ferry capabilities. 

The committee believes that unmanned capabilities will continue 

to replace functions that currently require an aircrew. The committee is aware of a proposal to conduct further research on such 

an unmanned lighter-than-air capability, which can also serve as 

a research platform for the Navy. The committee recommends an 

additional $2.5 million to support development of a lighter-than-air 

research platform. 

Advanced actuators for submarines 

The budget request included $608.6 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development, including $25.1 million to 

reduce submarine self noise, $4.9 million to reduce total ownership 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
63 

costs, and $4.2 million for developing new ship concepts. However, 

the budget request included no funding for developing quiet advanced electrical actuators. 

The committee believes that the Navy should develop advanced 

drive electric motors for use in Navy submarines to reduce noise 

signature through the use of noise-cancelling and vibration reduction technologies. The goal of such a development would be to enable the Navy to design and build all-electric submarines, or to 

backfit existing submarines with such systems to make them more 

electric. In either case, the committee believes that introducing 

such technology could result in reduced operations and support 

costs and increased readiness in the fleet. 

The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million to support 

developing quiet advanced electrical actuators. 

Submarine shock mitigation 

The budget request included $608.6 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development, but included no funding 

for developing full-scale controllable shock mitigation devices to 

protect weapons aboard submarines. 

The Navy has designed various rafting systems that are intended 

to mitigate shock and vibrations for major portions of the combat 

systems and other equipment systems within submarines to make 

submarines more producible and sustainable throughout their service lives. The committee understands there is available technology 

that could be applied to mitigating shock and vibration to which 

Navy submarine weapons are exposed, and reduce the demands for 

making special ship construction provisions for isolating weapons 

from shock. If successful, such a shock mitigation system could reduce demands for more expensive future ship design and construction efforts, thereby achieving savings. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million 

to support developing full-scale controllable shock mitigation devices to protect weapons aboard submarines. 

Submarine payloads 

The budget request included $608.6 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development, including $8.3 million for 

various submarine payloads and sensors development activities. 

The Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations established goals to increase the employment of unmanned vehicles 

in future operations. Some of our submarines (SSGNs and later 

Virginia-class submarines) have large volume payload tubes to 

interface with the ocean. These tubes provide the capacity to carry 

larger unmanned vehicles. A prototype launch and recovery module 

for an SSGN tube is being built with delivery planned for December 2010. This is an enabler for the rapid integration of payloads 

into submarines at a reduced cost. With addition fiscal year 2011 

funds, the Navy could demonstrate the use of payloads to conduct 

various intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions that 

have not been possible before. 

The Navy needs a more formal program to integrate unmanned 

payloads into submarines and leverage these capabilities for future 

requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
64 

$20.0 million to support advanced submarine payloads development 

activities and to allow the Navy to define a more formal plan for 

this activity. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report with the fiscal year 2012 budget submission that 

defines the Navy’s plans for integrating current and future unmanned payloads into submarines. 

Ship hydrodynamic test facilities improvement 

The budget request included $1.8 million in PE 63564N for ship 

preliminary design and feasibility studies, but included no funding 

for continuing improvements to support the Navy’s own ship 

hydrodynamics test facilities. 

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division has implemented a 5-year, five-phase, fixed-price contract to replace the 

wave-making system in the maneuvering and sea keeping basin 

with modern systems capable of supporting current and future 

Navy needs. 

Fiscal year 2011 would represent the final year of that effort, but 

the Navy did not fund the final phase of the contract. The committee believes that the Navy should complete this upgrade effort 

to support current and future design activities, and recommends an 

additional $10.0 million for that purpose. 

Common network interface system 

The budget request included $24.3 million in PE 63582N for combat systems integration, but included no funding for continuing development of the common network interface (CNI) system. 

The Navy completed funding for the so-called CNI Flight 0 in 

2009. The Navy has installed CNI Flight 0 on five of the LHA/LHD 

vessels, and has planned several spirals into 2013. The Navy partially funded the next spiral of CNI capability (‘‘Flight 0+’’), but has 

chosen now to shift the resources required to finish that development to other programs. The Navy had also intended to outfit the 

remaining LHA/LHD vessels with either CNI Flight 0 or Flight 0+. 

The committee has consistently supported moving the Navy to 

open architecture in its ship systems. 

The committee believes that the Navy should: (1) complete development of CNI Flight 0+; (2) backfit the Flight 0+ capability on the 

Flight 0 ships; and (3) install CNI on additional LHA/LHD vessels. 

The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for those 

purposes. 

Decision and energy reduction tool 

The budget request included $40.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 63635M for Marine Corps 

Ground Combat/Support System, but no funds for a decision and 

energy reduction tool to apply computer simulation techniques to 

model and predict the performance of fuel-efficiency technologies. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $45.0 million, an 

increase of $4.5 million for this purpose. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
65 

Navy energy research 

The budget request included $30.4 million in PE 63724N for the 

Navy energy program. This program works to evaluate, adapt, and 

demonstrate energy related technologies for Navy aircraft and ship 

operations. In support of these goals, the committee recommends 

an increase of $2.5 million for the development of fuel cell technologies for naval applications, and an additional $3.0 million for 

improvements to high-density energy storage development. 

Flame retardant textile fabric 

The budget request included $4.1 million in PE 63739N for Navy 

logistics productivity initiatives, but included no funding to develop 

more cost effective, flame retardant fabrics. 

Intumescent materials are materials that undergo a chemical 

change when exposed to heat or flames, becoming viscous then 

forming expanding bubbles that harden into a dense, heat insulating multi-cellular char. Previous research showed that 

intumescent flame retardants generate far higher levels of char 

than conventional retardants. In doing so, they provide extremely 

high levels of fire resistance to underlying surfaces (garment). 

However, a major drawback of using such materials in textile applications, usually as applied coatings, has been that even the most 

water-insoluble of these intumescent materials do not survive the 

textile-laundering processes. 

The committee believes that the Navy should develop these materials further by investigating: (1) the best fiber combination for 

treatment with advanced flame retardant chemicals; (2) the best 

flame retardant finishing agent for treating those textiles; and (3) 

the best technique for applying that flame retardant finishing 

agent to the textiles. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to develop 

this important technology. 

Optical interconnect 

The budget request included $4.1 million in PE 63739N for Navy 

logistics productivity initiatives, but included no funding to develop 

low cost, high quality fiber optic interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The Department of Defense continues to 

demand increasing data processing, communication, and system 

control capabilities. The next-generation data and communication 

management systems needed for weapons systems will depend 

upon tightly integrated optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect. This solution optimizes space utilization while 

achieving high bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety 

and security. The Navy has requirements for next-generation optical interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems, 

and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

to develop this important technology. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
66 

Air and missile defense radar 

The budget request included $274.4 million in PE 64501N for ad- vanced above water sensors, including $228.4 million for the air 

and missile defense radar (AMDR) program. 

The Navy’s AMDR program is intended to produce a next-generation radar system designed to provide ballistic missile defense, air 

defense, and surface warfare capabilities. The fiscal year 2010 

budget includes $113.6 million for AMDR technology development 

contracts and the fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $145.3 

million for AMDR technology development contracts. 

In December 2009, the Navy released a request for proposals for 

AMDR technology development. The Navy intends to award these 

technology development contracts after completion of Milestone A, 

which has been delayed. The Navy had planned to have a Milestone A decision in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010, but the 

Navy now expects that decision in August, after the Navy completes key analyses. 

Based on this delayed decision, the Government Accountability Office has estimated that $22.5 million of the fiscal year 2010 

funds are not needed to fund fiscal year 2010 activities and could 

be applied to fiscal year 2011 requirements. 

Therefore, the committee believes the Navy should use 2010 resources available for AMDR instead of reprogramming them, which 

obviate the need for $22.5 million of the funds requested in fiscal 

year 2011. 

TB–33 thinline towed array 

The budget request included $118.9 million in PE 64503N for SSN–688 and Trident modernization programs, including $11.6 

million for making further developments of the TB–33 thinline 

towed array system. 

Since last year, the Navy has restructured the TB–33 program 

to provide an additional year of development activity, including fabricating a production representative unit for conducting operational 

testing. After that testing, the Navy plans to begin production of 

the TB–33 in fiscal year 2012. 

The committee believes that the Navy requires additional resources to complete fabrication of that production representative 

unit and complete special test modules to evaluate the final TB– 

33 design. The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million to complete development of the TB–33 thinline towed array. 

Advanced manufacturing for submarine bow domes 

The budget request included $155.5 million in PE 64558N for 

new design SSN activities, but included no funding to continue a 

program to develop advanced manufacturing processes and techniques for fabricating submarine bow domes and rubber boots. 

The committee believes that developing the capability to build 

large structures consisting of composite materials that are cured 

outside an autoclave will provide manufacturing flexibility, maintain reliability and quality requirements, and could allow fabrication of much larger structures, such as domes and boots for larger 

submarines. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
67 

The committee recommends an additional $1.3 million to continue this program. 

Common command and control system module 

The budget request included $155.5 million in PE 64558N for 

new design SSN activities, but included no funding for developing 

a common command and control system module for application to 

Virginia-class submarines or an Ohio-class replacement program, 

SSBN(X). 

The committee understands that the Navy could design a new 

command and control module for submarines that could also significantly reduce construction costs on all submarine classes, but 

certainly would enable rapid reconfiguration of mission equipment 

in these spaces, reduce the demands on watch standers, and reduce 

the total ownership costs to the Navy for supporting disparate command and control configurations. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million 

in PE 64558N to continue these development activities. 

Submarine airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability 

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no 

funding for developing concepts and technologies that could support 

a covertly launched, organic submarine intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance (ISR) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system. 

The committee expects that the Navy will begin development of 

a submarine-based unmanned aerial vehicle system in fiscal year 

2012. 

In anticipation of that, the Navy could use additional funding to 

begin tasks leading to a design of a capsule that could enable a 

submarine to covertly launch a UAV. These tasks would include selecting final materials, improving reliability, testing for environmental and system safety, and integrating the UAV system with 

the submarine communications and command and control suites. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.6 million to further 

develop this submarine-launched UAV capability. 

Submarine artificial intelligence-based combat system software module 

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no 

funding for developing an artificial intelligence-based combat system software module. 

The Navy has begun an effort to develop a mission focused, decision-tailored command decision support system (CDSS) to use within the current submarine open architecture combat system that 

would introduce intelligent agent-based automation, advanced visualization, and collaboration technologies. 

Such a command decision support system should improve decision making by submarine commanding officers and senior staff, 

leading to improved mission effectiveness with reduced control 

room manning. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
68 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to continue development of an artificial intelligence-based combat system 

software module. 

Submarine environment for evaluation and development 

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no 

funding to continue the submarine environment for evaluation and 

development (SEED) program. 

This program has provided a low-cost test bed for industry and 

academia to create and evaluate innovative ideas and to integrate 

their products into currently deployed and conceptual systems. This 

test bed avoids the complication and expense of testing such ideas 

and products on more costly shore-based hardware or actual fleet 

equipment until the Navy can determine whether the ideas merit 

further development. 

The committee supports this activity and recommends an in- crease of $5.5 million to continue and expand this activity. 

Submarine weapon acquisition and firing system 

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no 

funding to continue development of an automated weapon acquisition and firing system (WAFS). 

An automated WAFS could provide an accurate target solution 

and aid submarine crews in properly configuring the weapon and 

executing procedures to acquire the target. The crew could rely on 

such an expert system to automatically determine optimal ballistic 

settings, based on the target solutions and weapon tactics best 

practices, and thereby eliminate the need for crews to rely on reference documents. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to continue development of a WAFS capability. 

SSGN weapon launcher technology insertion 

The budget request included $50.5 million in PE 64562N for submarine tactical warfare systems development, but included no 

funding to continue Navy’s common weapon launcher program to 

integrate common weapon launchers on SSGNs. 

The Navy plans to complete integration of the common weapons 

launcher into the Virginia-class combat system in fiscal year 2010. 

However, the Navy has not funded extending this capability to the 

SSGN fleet, which will operate as attack submarines throughout 

much of their mission profiles. This means that the Navy would 

have to forego the opportunity to achieve savings by consolidating 

training and logistics for the launcher systems on these boats with 

that of the Virginia-class submarines. 

The committee believes that such an omission is short-sighted, 

and recommends an increase of $5.0 million to integrate the common weapon launcher on SSGNs. 

Automated fiber optic manufacturing capability 

The budget request included $153.7 million in PE 64567N for 

ship contract design and live fire test and evaluation activities, but 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
69 

included no funding for continuing development of an automated 

fiber optic manufacturing capability. 

Last year, the Navy completed production of a fully automated 

factory work cell that will support aircraft carrier construction/ 

overhaul and Virginia-class submarine programs. The Navy believes that this manufacturing capability will allow the shipbuilding industry to produce factory terminated fiber optic cable assemblies and systems much more efficiently, which should generate 

millions of dollars in shipbuilding program cost savings. The Navy 

is also using fiscal year 2009 and 2010 resources to develop portable capabilities for field installation, field repair, and maintenance 

derived from the technologies of the automated manufacturing line. 

Such portable capability would be useful both by ship construction 

personnel during construction and overhaul, and by ship’s force 

personnel in performing maintenance when ships are not in the 

yards. 

The committee believes that the Navy should continue these ef- forts in fiscal year 2011, and recommends an additional $4.0 million for that purpose. 

Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle 

The budget request included $45.9 million in PE 64755N for ship 

self defense (detect and control) projects, but included no funding 

for the autonomous unmanned surface vehicle (AUSV) program. 

The AUSV program supports the U.S. Navy’s anti-terrorism, force 

protection, and homeland defense missions. The AUSV can protect 

commercial harbors, coastal facilities such as commercial and military airports and nuclear power plants, inland waterways, and 

large lakes. The vessel will utilize a variety of advanced sensing 

and perimeter monitoring equipment for surveillance and detection 

of targets of interest. The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million to continue this development. 

Next-generation Phalanx 

The budget request included $5.9 million in PE 64756N for ship 

self-defense (engage: hard kill), but included no funding for nextgeneration Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the Navy’s 

principal close-in weapon system for ship self-defense, and has 

proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against emerging 

air and surface target sets. The continually evolving nature of the 

threat, unique challenges posed by operations in the littorals, increased emphasis on single ship probability of raid annihilation, 

and fact of life technology obsolescence require continued development effort to sustain the superior performance of this critical ship 

self-defense system. The committee recommends an increase of 

$12.0 million in PE 64756N for the continued development of the 

next-generation Phalanx. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system 

The budget request included $84.5 million for ship self- defense 

soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $5.4 million 

for various development activities related to the NULKA anti-ship 

missile decoy system. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
70 

The Navy has identified a series of development activities associated with the NULKA system that are required to understand and 

deal with emerging threats: 

(1) develop advanced radio frequency digital circuits enabling 

wider frequency coverage; 

(2) design an architecture that will ensure seamless operation with a variety of U.S. Navy combat systems; 

(3) integrate NULKA into the Navy’s Aegis weapon control 

system open architecture; and 

(4) provide shipboard test and trial support. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for the 

NULKA development program to continue these efforts. 

Composite tissue transplantation for combat wound repair 

The budget request included $12.3 million in PE 64771N for 

medical development activities, but included no funding to continue 

the composite tissue transplantation for combat wound repair program. 

In 2009, the Navy began an effort to establish a multidisciplinary 

center for the systematic study of composite tissue transplantation. 

The Navy intends for this center to conduct mechanistic studies on 

the immune response and rejection of transplanted tissues and establish a capability to conduct clinical trials in hand transplantation. The program includes a strategy to collect and analyze clinical data and materials to further the knowledge base on composite 

tissue transplants and will be used to develop novel immunosuppressive treatments. 

In 2010, the Navy is expanding these efforts to conduct the actual clinical trials for hand transplants. 

The committee believes this effort needs to continue in fiscal year 

2011, and recommends an increase of $2.0 million to do that. 

Navy information technology programs 

The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 65013N for information technology development. To support initiatives to improve network centric operations, data fusion, and human systems 

interfaces, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

for information systems research and technology. 

Navy manufacturing technology 

The budget request included $46.2 million in PE 78011N for 

Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes 

that in 2006, the Defense Science Board recommended that investments in the manufacturing technology program be increased to a 

level of 1 percent of the total research, development, test, and evaluation budget. The Board also found that the manufacturing technology program has invested in efforts that have reduced systems 

cost and improved systems performance. Consistent with those recommendations and findings, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for integrated manufacturing enterprise development to streamline manufacturing techniques, business practices, and practices to reduce costs of Navy platforms. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
71 

Strike study 

The budget request included $81.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 11221N line 162 for strategic submarine and weapons systems support. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million. Of the amount requested 

$10.0 million was for a study for ambiguity and other issues that 

associated with conventional and nuclear payloads on strategic ballistic missile submarines. The committee recommends no funds for 

the study. The committee notes that the National Academy of 

Sciences conducted an extensive study on this issue and the additional study would be redundant. 

Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform 

The budget request included $81.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 11221N line 162 for strategic submarine and weapons systems support but no funds for the 

Virtual Maintenance Engineering Platform (VMEP). The committee 

recommends an additional $1.5 million for information assurance 

certification for the VMEP system so that it can be installed on 

strategic submarines. 

Tomahawk cost reduction initiatives 

The budget request included $10.6 million for various upgrades 

to the Tomahawk missile and the Tomahawk mission planning center, but included no funding for making changes to the missile to 

reduce recurring production costs. The largest expense in the 

Tomahawk missile is the engine. The committee believes that the 

Navy and contractor team could improve manufacturing efficiencies 

on key components of the engine to reduce recurring production 

costs enough to more than pay for any non-recurring investment 

necessary to design and test those improvements. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.6 million 

to fund non-recurring engineering to design and implement: (1) 

manufacturing system improvements; and (2) engine and missile 

interface improvements. 

Aircraft metal alloys 

The budget request included $133.6 million in PE 63123N for 

various aviation improvement programs, but included no funding 

for further developing new metal alloys for aircraft applications. 

The Navy has funded basic research on new metal alloys that 

show promise for application to military aircraft components. This 

has resulted in designing and developing two new ultra-high performance alloys, M54 for airframe applications (primarily landing 

gear), and C64 for gears. The committee understands that the performance of these alloys far exceeds currently used materials, because they provide substantial cost and weight savings while being 

virtually maintenance free in service and safer for the environment 

than using current materials. Current environmental concerns for 

existing materials arise from the fact that current alloys used in 

landing gear steels have to be coated in environmentally devastating cadmium. Developing these alloys further could lead to 

certification and qualification of these alloys and manufacturing of 

test articles. The committee understands that test articles using 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
72 

these alloys would then be evaluated according to priorities established in the Defense Department’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. The committee recommends an additional $2.8 million for maturing these alloys. 

Aircraft windscreen laminates 

The budget request included $133.6 million in PE 63123N for 

various aviation improvement programs, but included no funding 

for developing a sacrificial windscreen laminates that would also 

provide protection from laser and electromagnetic attacks. 

The committee believes that there is an increasing risk in laser 

and electromagnetic interference (EMI) attacks against Defense 

Department aircraft. The Navy has been developing sacrificial 

windscreen laminates that maintain current performance in preventing damage from erosion, but, in addition, provide passive EMI 

and laser protection. Unlike complicated electronic devices, this 

passive system is continuously providing protection to aircrews and 

critical aircraft electronics, such as targeting and communications 

systems. The committee understands that the Naval Air Systems 

Command has concluded that this new laminate material could be 

fielded with only modest additional development, and could provide 

a long-term solution to this increasing threat. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $1.7 million 

to develop improved aircraft windscreen laminates. 

Tracking helicopter structural life 

The budget request included $133.6 million in PE 63123N for 

various aviation improvement programs, but included no funding 

for developing a system to track helicopter structural life. 

The Department of the Navy lacks a comprehensive program for 

tracking the structural life of its helicopters. Implementing such a 

program would allow the Navy to better track their helicopters and 

its components based on actual aircraft flight usage. Traditional 

tracking methods are based on paper records and assume the aircraft flies a predetermined or ‘‘design’’ flight pattern. 

With the advent of onboard flight data recorders, the actual 

flight pattern can be determined by collecting on-board flight recorder data and determining the exact damage caused to the aircraft by each flight. By tracking the components based on actual 

flight usage, unnecessary and premature component removals 

could be eliminated. Furthermore, aircrew safety would be enhanced by knowing exactly how the aircraft flies and predicting 

when a component should be removed to prevent failure of the component and a potential mishap. 

The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million to develop 

a structural life tracking program for Department of the Navy helicopters. 

System for triaging key evidence 

The budget request included $245.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 26313M for Marine Corps 

Communications Systems. The committee recommends an authorization of $247.1 million, $1.8 million above the request, to enhance 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
73 

the capabilities of the System for Triaging Key Evidence (STRIKE). 

STRIKE is a successful digital media exploitation system in use by 

a wide variety of organizations and forces. It provides a capability 

to rapidly determine, in the field, what information is stored on 

phones, computers, portable media, and other devices; what 

stripped down information should be extracted and downloaded; 

and to analyze content. The device can dramatically reduce the 

amount of material that needs to be transmitted to rear echelons 

for analysis, and provides immediate, on-scene support to tactical 

forces. 

Marine Corps personnel carrier data management system 

The budget request included $26.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 26623M for initial development activities for the Marine Corps Personnel Carrier (MPC). 

The committee recommends an authorization of an additional $2.0 

million for a performance feedback and assessment system to assist 

the program manager in acquiring and applying operational data 

to the design and maintenance of the MPC. 

Unique identification web-based tracking and accountability software 

The budget request included $100.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, in PE 26623M for Marine Corps 

Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. The committee recommends authorization of $4.5 million above the request for 

unique identification data management and tracking software for 

a web-based, enterprise-wide application with secure mobile computing. 

Air Force 

Cyber research and training 

The budget request included $351.0 million in Air Force defense 

research sciences to fund fundamental broad-based scientific and 

engineering research in areas critical to Air Force weapon systems. 

In support of research in the growing field of cyber security, the 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 61102F 

for the development of related modeling and simulation training capabilities. Similarly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 

million in PE 61101E for research on security for critical and vulnerable control networks. 

Air Force materials research 

The budget request included $137.3 million in PE 62102F for applied materials research. The Air Force’s Energy Program Policy 

has a stated objective of increasing renewable resources on Air 

Force bases. In support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for efforts to design, implement, and test systems and processes capable of producing renewable energy at large scales for military installations. 

The committee notes that the 2003 National Research Council 

study ‘‘Materials Research to Meet 21st Century Defense Needs’’ 

identified a number of high priority research areas in advanced 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
74 

materials in order to address defense requirements. The study recommended investing in technologies that would integrate nondestructive inspection and evaluation into the original design of 

both materials and structures. Consistent with this recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the 

development of health monitoring sensors for aerospace components. The committee also recommends an additional $1.0 million 

for light alloy parts development. 

The National Research Council recommended that the Department of Defense ‘‘make investments in research leading to new 

strategies for the processing, manufacture, inspection, and maintenance of materials and systems.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62102F for research on 

nano-manufacturing models, analyses, and controls to develop the 

next-generation of manufacturing processes and systems. 

Aerospace vehicle technologies 

The budget request included $144.7 million in PE 62201F for 

aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for unmanned aerial system (UAS) collaboration technologies to support the development of advanced UAS and 

enhance the ability to integrate UAS pilots, sensor operators, and 

information analysts, as well as to better coordinate and collaborate their activities. 

Reconfigurable electronics and software 

The budget request included $111.9 million in PE 62601F for 

space technologies. The Department of Defense’s January 2007 ‘‘Response to Findings and Recommendations of the Defense Science 

Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply’’ highlighted the Department’s need for microelectronic systems, local 

field programmable gate arrays, with functions that could be 

changed to support different types of systems. In support of meeting that need, the committee recommends an increase of $500,000 

for research on reconfigurable electronics. 

Seismic research program 

The budget request included $111.9 million in PE 62601F for 

space technologies. The committee remains particularly concerned 

with ongoing developments in rogue state nuclear programs. Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million 

for the Air Force seismic research program. This program has and 

will continue to enable the United States to monitor compliance 

with the current moratorium on nuclear testing. 

Space plasma research 

The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 62601F for 

space survivability and surveillance applied research focused on developing technologies to protect spacecraft against the harmful effects of the space environment. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62601F to improve ground testing capabilities to better understand the effects of 

space plasmas on spacecraft performance and mission life. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
75 

Directed energy research 

The budget request included $53.4 million in PE 62890F towards 

high-energy laser research. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in this account for 

improved directed energy research and development coordination 

by the Directed Energy Joint Technology office. The Secretary shall 

provide to Congressional defense committees no later than February 2011, a long-term plan of the roles and responsibilities of the 

Joint Technology Office for High Energy Lasers for supporting the 

overall mission of the Department in directed energy. 

Air Force advanced materials research 

The budget request included $33.4 million in PE 63112F for the 

development of advanced materials for weapon systems. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to support the Metals Affordability Initiative, a joint government and industry consortium aimed at strengthening the metals industrial base through 

collaborative technology development and transition projects. The 

overall program helps improve current processing technologies and 

develop novel techniques for primary metal production, part manufacturing, and weapon system support. The committee also recommends a specific increase of $1.5 million in PE 62204F in order 

to accelerate development of gallium nitride materials, a compound 

in high demand for high performance electronics in the defense 

realm. 

The committee also notes the need to improve the readiness and 

maintainability of airframes beyond the fiscal year 2010 budget request amount in PE 63112F. In support of this objective, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on nondestructive testing technologies and $2.0 million for improved composite repair in theater. To improve manufacturing technology and 

the availability of frequency selective surface structures for a variety of specialized antenna applications, the committee recommends 

an additional $2.0 million in PE 63680F. 

Finally, to support Air Force efforts to develop cheaper, alternative sources of aviation fuel, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63112F for sewage-derived biofuels research. 

Advanced fuels and propulsion 

The budget request included $136.1 million in PE 63216F to develop advanced aerospace power and propulsion technologies. The 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63216F 

for algal biofuel research. In addition, the committee recommends 

an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63734A for alternative biofuel research. 

Air Force advanced propulsion systems 

The budget request included $136.1 million in PE 63216F for 

aerospace propulsion and power technology. To support efforts 

under the High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstrator project as 

part of the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine program, 

the committee recommends an additional $4.0 million to develop 

supersonic turbine engines that can support the development of a 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
76 

long-range high-speed strike missile. The committee notes that the 

Department of Defense is continuing its investments in the development of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capabilities for intelligence, strike, and other missions. In support of foundational systems capabilities efforts, the committee recommends an additional 

$2.5 million for the development of scalable UAV engines. 

Finally, to support continued development of high-temperature 

power electronics to meet critical needs of the Joint Strike Fighter 

and other aircraft platform systems, the committee recommends an 

increase of $4.0 million for research and development using silicon 

carbide power modules. 

Carbon nanotubes 

The budget request included $83.7 million for advanced spacecraft technology in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 

Air Force, PE 63401F line 22, but no funds for carbon nanotubes. 

The committee recommends $2.0 million for research to support a 

U.S.-based source of high purity carbon nanotube solutions for 

space and other defense applications. 

Collaboration gateway 

The budget request included $5.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 63260F for Intelligence Advanced Development, but no funds for a collaboration 

gateway for disseminating, accessing, and sharing video imagery 

across classified and unclassified networks. The committee recommends an authorization of $2.0 million above the requested 

amount for this project. 

Global Positioning System operating control segment 

The budget request included no funds in Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63423F line 33. The budget request did include $381.9 million for the Global Positioning System 

III (GPS III) operating control segment (OCX) in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35265F line 212 with 

the budget request for the GPS III space vehicle development. The 

committee believes that the funds for the OCX should remain in 

PE 63423F line 33, where the funds were appropriated in fiscal 

year 2010. The committee recommends a $381.9 million reduction 

in line 212 and an increase in line 33 to effect the transfer. 

Space situational awareness 

The budget request included $61.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 63438F for 

Space Control Technology but not funds to integrate data from the 

Missile Defense X-band radar or the Sea-based X-band platform 

into the space surveillance network. The committee recommends an 

increase of $6.0 million to integrate this data into the space surveillance network. 

Space protection program 

The budget request included $8.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63830F line 40 for the 

space protection program. The committee recommends an addiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
77 

tional $5.0 million. The space protection program develops an integrated space protection strategy to support the national security 

space enterprise to identify and recommend solutions to protect 

space capabilities. As the threats to space systems continue to 

grow, improving the ability to identify assess and protect against 

this wide range of threats is essential. 

Next-generation military satellite communications 

The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDTEF), for next-generation 

military satellite communications to identify technologies that 

could be used on future military communications satellites. Congress provided $50.0 million for continued research and development in next-generation military satellite communications, including for protected communications in fiscal year 2010, following cancellation of the Transformational Communications satellite (T-Sat) 

program. The committee is disappointed that no funds were included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in a new 

program element, PE 64436F line 52. This new PE is created to 

continue the efforts to explore communications technologies that 

could be utilized on future blocks of current communications satellite or eventually on next-generation communications satellite. 

These risk reduction efforts should include continued efforts to reduce the cost, weight, and complexity of current radiation hardening techniques. 

One of the many problems with the T-Sat program was that it 

was started with very immature technologies. In the future when 

new or evolved communications satellites are needed, the committee wants to ensure that the technologies are sufficiently mature to be fielded with low cost and schedule risk. 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The budget request included $94.0 million for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) in Air Force Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation PE 64857F including $20.2 million for ORS–1, a 

small satellite being built at the request of U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) to satisfy the Command’s urgent need number 3. 

ORS–1 is currently on schedule to launch at the end of 2010, which 

would demonstrate the ability to design, build, and launch a satellite within 2 years of a decision to start. This is a significant accomplishment. 

While ORS continues to make progress in all of its three tiers, 

the funding for fiscal year 2011 is not adequate to continue the necessary efforts for the crosscutting portions of the ORS office, including modeling and simulation, satellite command and control, future 

planning and other activities to support the overall ORS partnerships. The committee recommends an additional $20.0 million to 

restore funding for this effort to the fiscal year 2010 level. The additional funds will help ORS to continue to identify unique approaches for small responsive satellites and improve responsive capabilities. 

The committee commends the ORS Office and the other agencies 

and military services for participating in this innovative approach 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
78 

to space. The committee is concerned, however, that the ORS Office 

has not been able to take full advantage of various streamlined acquisition approaches and directs the Air Force to assist ORS in 

identifying areas where improvement is needed and to grant ORS 

the necessary authorities. The committee directs the Secretary of 

the Air Force to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that would outline a plan for ORS to utilize directly 

streamlined acquisition authorities no later than February 1, 2011. 

The committee supports the ORS efforts to explore flexible payloads for use on responsive satellite buses with common interfaces. 

These payloads include synthetic aperture radar and other payloads to enhance the ability of the warfighter to monitor the 

battlespace and to augment conventional intelligence surveillance 

and reconnaissance assets. 

One of the areas that the ORS Office has not focused on is nextgeneration launch capabilities. At the present there is adequate 

launch capability but it is expensive. The committee is aware of a 

different approach to designing launch vehicles that might reduce 

in the long run the cost of launch, and that might be suitable for 

small and medium (Delta II) class and below launch. The committee recommends $15.0 million for the radially segmented launch 

vehicle for ORS and the Space Test Program to continue concept 

development and determine the technical validity of the approach. 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

The budget request included $325.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35178F line 58 for the 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

(NPOESS). The NPOESS was a joint Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather satellite program. The committee recommends $100.0 million, a reduction of $225.5 million. 

Shortly after the budget request for fiscal year 2011 was submitted, the administration decided to dissolve the NPOESS program and directed DOD and NOAA to develop separate programs. 

As part of this structuring DOD was assigned responsibility for the 

early morning orbit and the DOC–NOAA was assigned responsibility for the afternoon orbit. Neither DOD nor DOC–NOAA has 

identified a new program plan to implement the restructuring decision. As a result the fiscal year 2010 funds are available to develop 

a new follow-on program and all of the fiscal year 2011 funds will 

not be needed. The committee is disappointed with the decision to 

dissolve the joint NPOESS program and is concerned that the new, 

yet to be determined, program may not be able to ensure continuity 

in weather satellites. 

The DOD last launched a weather satellite, the Defense Meteorological Satellite (DMSP) in 2009, and has two more DMSP satellites in storage, DMSP–19 and DMSP–20. These satellites have 

been in storage for many years and will require a service life extension program before they could be launched to fill any gaps caused 

by the restructuring of the NPOESS program. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
79 

The committee urges the DOD and the Air Force to decide on a 

follow-on program as quickly as possible to ensure that there are 

no gaps in weather coverage. The committee does not believe that 

relying on the DMSP–19 and DMSP–20 as a means of avoiding or 

delaying a new program is a realistic option. When it was restructured, the NPOESS program was already 6 years behind. On the 

other hand, the NPOESS program was technically sound and had 

made substantial investments in a variety of weather and environmental sensors that should be preserved. The committee sees no 

benefit to be gained from redesigning sensors already designed, and 

in some cases delivered, under the NPOESS program. 

The committee directs the DOD and the Air Force to prepare a 

program plan designed to launch a first satellite as soon as possible 

following the planned launch of DMSP–19 in early fiscal year 2013. 

The program plan for the follow-on should be provided with the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The committee supports a strategy 

that will result in the first NPOESS successor satellite to be ready 

to launch as soon as technically feasible. The U.S. cannot tolerate 

a gap in weather coverage. 

Nuclear Enterprise Surety Tracking Initiative 

The budgeted request included $60.5 million for nuclear weapons 

support Air Force Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, 

PE 64222F line 60 but no fund for the Nuclear Enterprise Surety 

Tracking Initiative (NESTI). The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the NESTI to develop secure electronic 

systems to track the location and status of nuclear weapons and 

critical nuclear components. 

Space-based space surveillance system 

The budget request included $426.5 million in Space Situation 

Awareness, Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, PE 64425 line 70. The committee recommends a reduction of 

$30.0 million for the Space-based space surveillance system (SBSS) 

follow-on. The SBSS block–10 program has been delayed; as a result, $30.0 million of the $38.0 million included in the budget request for the follow-on program will not be needed in fiscal year 

2011. 

Space-based Infrared System 

The budget request included $530.0 million for the Space-based 

Infrared system (SBIRS) for Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64441 line 72 including $175.2 million 

for ground development. The SBIRS program is a missile early 

warning, technical intelligence, and battlespace awareness system 

with Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) sensors and Geosynchronous 

Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites. The committee recommends an additional $15.0 million for HEO ground integration and data exploitation. 

The GEO–1 satellite has been plagued by schedule delays and 

cost overruns. In previous years additional funds were needed to 

resolve GEO–1 problems. As a result funds to support ground integration and HEO data exploitation were diverted to resolve the 

GEO–1 issues. Congress provided additional funds in fiscal year 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
80 

2010 to increase the analytic efforts to support HEO sensors so 

that the full capability of the HEO sensors can be understood and 

exploited including the benefits from HEO stereo applications. 

More work remains to be done, particularly as additional HEO sensors become available. 

Although the delivery and launch schedule for the GEO–1 satellite continues to slip, the committee notes that the Air Force expects the GEO–1 satellite will be ready to ship no later than March 

2011, assuming the ongoing software problems are resolved. 

The committee directs the Air Force to include adequate funding 

in the fiscal year 2012 budget request to continue exploitation of 

the HEO sensors and to ensure a robust exploitation program for 

the GEO–1 satellite, assuming that it launches in late 2011 or 

early 2012. 

The committee notes that the overhead persistent infrared 

(OPIR) architecture study, which was due last summer, is still not 

completed. This study is essential for making decisions with respect to future OPIR requirements including those for SBIRS satellites and sensors and the Precision Tracking Satellite System 

being developed by the Missile Defense Agency. 

Third generation infrared surveillance 

The budget request included no funds for third generation infrared surveillance (3GIRS) in Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, Air Force, PE64443F line 73. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million. The Air Force has no technology development line for next-generation infrared technology. 

While the Air Force has decided to continue with the Spaced-based 

Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) system, the committee believes that at 

some point there will be a need to augment, update or replace the 

SBIRS system. To ensure that technologies are sufficiently mature 

when needed, the committee recommends the additional funding to 

ensure continued focus on next-generation focal plane arrays and 

other technologies. 

Air Force test and evaluation 

The budget request included $61.6 million in PE 64759F for Air 

Force major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes 

the importance of preserving the capability to test missiles and 

their sub-systems, such as sensors and structures, at very high 

speeds. To support the enhancement of these capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million for upgrades to the 

high-speed test track at Holloman Air Force Base. 

Space test program 

The budget request included $47.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 65864F line 104 for the 

space test program (STP). The committee recommends an increase 

of $15.0 million to support the possibility of increasing small experimental satellite and sensor launches from one every 2 years to one 

every 18 months and to increase the number of piggyback launches 

including those using the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle secondary payload adapter ring. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
81 

B–2 

The budget request included $260.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 11127F line 120 for B– 

2 Squadrons, including $92.3 million for extremely high frequency 

(EHF) increment 2 to develop a low observable EHF antenna and 

radome and install Family of Beyond Line of Sight terminals (FABT)on the B–2 aircraft. 

At the end of December 2009, the Air Force decided that the previous technical approach using a mechanically steered EHF antenna presented an unacceptably high risk and decided to pursue 

an active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna. With this 

decision the schedule for achieving an initial operational capability 

for EHF increment 2 has been delayed at least 4 years from fiscal 

year 2015 to fiscal year 2019. The approach adopted would be the 

first time an AESA antenna for EHF communications was developed for aircraft. Moreover, the critical elements of the new approach are only at technical readiness levels 3 and 4. 

The committee is concerned that this shift may result in even 

further delays to the ability of the B–2 to have EHF communications capability. The committee is also concerned about the decision 

making process and the technical rationale underpinning the shift 

in approach. As a result, the committee directs the Air Force to establish an external independent technical review team to review 

the technical approach adopted and the Government Accountability 

Office to review the decision making process utilized by the Air 

Force. The independent technical review team should specifically 

examine the Air Force’s proposed shift from a mechanically steered 

EHF antenna to an AESA antenna, and the cost, schedule, and 

technical risks of this proposed shift. No more than 50 percent of 

the funds available for the B–2 for EHF increment 2 in fiscal year 

2011 may be obligated until the reviews have been completed and 

submitted to the congressional defense committees. 

Cyber operations security institute 

The budget request included $2.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 28021F for Information Warfare Support, but no funds for the Cyber Operations Security Institute (COSI). COSI is a public-private partnership supporting the Air Force Global Strike Command in the area of visualization, video war-gaming, and command and control of cyber tools. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $1.5 million above 

the requested amount for COSI. 

Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence 

The budget request included $140.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 33140F for the Information Systems Security Program (ISSP). The budget request did 

not include funds for the Air Force’s Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence (ASACOE) aside from salaries for government personnel. 

The Air Force Air Material Command’s Electronic Systems Center established the ASACOE in 2005 after a very serious cybersecurity breach resulted in the loss of the personnel records of 33,000 

Air Force officers. A vulnerable custom software application was 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
82 

the avenue for the intrusion. The Air Force realized that it had a 

major problem with vulnerable software applications that was accelerating as more and more applications and services were becoming web-based and accessible through the Internet. In a far-sighted 

move, the Air Force established the ASACOE to start to fix that 

problem. However, the committee understands that the Center has 

been funded almost entirely from internal sources on an ad hoc 

basis and will soon enter a ‘‘stand by’’ status due to lack of funding. 

The ASACOE’s mission is to (1) foster security into the software 

development and maintenance life cycle, and (2) enable the defense 

of software applications against attacks. This Center is unique in 

the Department of Defense and has received high marks for its 

work. It has developed best practices and methodologies for securely developing and testing software, including automated tools 

to discover vulnerabilities and to monitor running applications in 

real time. 

The committee is concerned that the level and manner of funding 

for the ASACOE is not commensurate with the scope of the software applications vulnerability problem in the Air Force and the 

rest of the Defense Department. The committee recommends an authorization of $7.0 million above the requested amount for the Air 

Force ISSP program to sustain the ASACOE and extend the scope 

of its work. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2011, on the role of 

the ASACOE in securing software applications for the Air Force 

and the Department of Defense overall. 

Malware research technology demonstration and validation 

The budget request included $140.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 33140F for the Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for malware research technology demonstration and validation. This initiative will 

provide capabilities for testing, demonstrating, and transitioning 

technologies for cybersecurity to support Air Force rapid and agile 

cyber acquisition efforts. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $1.8 million for 

this project, for a total authorization of $141.8 million for this program element. 

Milsatcom terminals 

The budget request included $186.6 million for milsatcom terminals including $136.3 million for the family of beyond line of site 

terminals (FAB–T) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 

Air Force, PE 33601F line 180. The FAB–T program has been delayed and research and development funds are now needed to continue FAB–T research. The committee recommends that $116.4 

million be transferred from Air Craft Procurement, Air Force line 

75. 

Environmental awareness for unmanned systems 

The budget request included $169.0 million in PE 35206F for development of advanced airborne reconnaissance systems techVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
83 

nologies, such as sensors, data links, targeting networks, and quick 

reaction capabilities, in support of both manned and unmanned reconnaissance platforms. 

Today, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems rely almost entirely upon the Global Positioning System (GPS)-based navigation 

systems. While such navigation systems have worked well for 

UAVs to this point, there is the risk that future operations could 

be thwarted by foes using GPS denial techniques. A navigation system that would operate with an awareness of the environment 

aboard could be relied upon to operate in GPS-denied environments, and could allow UAVs to operate over longer missions by 

having them automatically adapt their flight profiles to the prevailing conditions. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million 

for developing an architecture for UAV avionics software systems 

that would permit UAVs to operate with an awareness of environmental conditions and automatically adapt to those conditions. 

Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance Program of Record 

The budget request included $78.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, in PE 35206F for the WideArea Airborne Surveillance Program of Record (WAAS POR). 

The administration plans to issue the request for proposals (RFP) 

for the WAAS POR in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, and 

to award a development contract in the third quarter of fiscal year 

2011. 

The committee concludes that this schedule is premature for the 

following reasons. The Department of Defense (DOD) has operational experience with WAAS imagery systems only through early 

versions of the Army Constant Hawk and Marine Corps/Air Force 

Angel Fire programs. These systems’ limitations are significant in 

the areas of resolution, frame rate, area of coverage, night time 

performance, and timeliness. In addition, the analytic tools, communications, storage and retrieval capabilities to support these and 

subsequent quick-reaction capabilities (QRC) remain limited. Operations research studies sponsored by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Joint Staff have concluded that the 

benefits of these early WAAS systems are limited. These studies 

suggest the possibility that substantially improved WAAS systems 

could be more valuable for the ‘‘find-fix-finish,’’ forensic analysis, 

and force overwatch missions could be more valuable, with larger 

coverage areas, resolution, frame rate, and so forth, but this has 

not been demonstrated. 

DOD will soon deploy several additional WAAS QRCs that, if 

properly resourced and supported, will answer the questions about 

value and illuminate requirements for any future program of 

record. Forward-deployed commanders and senior DOD officials are 

eager to see these QRCs deployed. These include the first increment of Gorgon Stare, the Blue Devil block I, the second version 

of Constant Hawk, and a very capable, small form-factor WAAS 

camera for the Army and Marine Corps Shadow unmanned aerial 

vehicle (UAV). In addition, soon after these deployments, DOD will 

deploy the second increment of Gorgon Stare and Blue Devil Bock 

II, each with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
84 

(DARPA) Autonomous Realtime Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance 

(ARGUS) camera, which will approach or match the draft requirements for the WAAS POR in the visible spectrum. 

DARPA has initiated two additional rapid development projects 

directly relevant to the WAAS mission. One is Wide-Area Network 

Detection (WAND) that will pair the ARGUS camera with real-time 

signals intelligence and geolocation capabilities. The other is an advanced infrared sensor that will match the daytime capabilities of 

the current ARGUS camera. 

The Blue Devil Block I QRC will also test the operational value 

of real-time WAAS imagery coupled with precision SIGINT and 

high-resolution full-motion video, and networked with other sensors. Block II will attempt to field capabilities similar, and derived 

from, the DARPA WAND project. 

Whereas the ARGUS-like area coverage may be necessary for sizable urban areas, it is ‘‘overkill’’ for operations in rural areas, and 

may well be too expensive to proliferate anyway. The smaller, 

lighter, and cheaper Wide Focal Plane Array Camera that the 

Navy is developing for the Shadow UAV appears to be better suited 

for operations in rural areas and where there is a potential need 

for large numbers of systems. 

In light of this large number of innovative, near-term WAAS programs heading for trial in Afghanistan, and the considerable uncertainties remaining about WAAS requirements and benefits, the 

committee is not willing to commit to a near-term locking in of 

WAAS POR requirements. Indeed, the QRC efforts of the Army, 

Air Force, Navy, and DARPA appear likely to continue to innovate 

and to meet the evolving needs of forces deployed in Afghanistan 

and elsewhere. The committee is more inclined to buttress and enhance these ongoing QRC efforts to ensure that deployed forces are 

adequately supported. 

In that regard, the committee notes that the Gorgon Stare Increment II program is short of funds for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to provide necessary processing, exploitation, 

and dissemination (PED). The same is true for the Blue Devil 

Block II. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of 

$15.0 million for the WAAS POR, a reduction of $63.7 million from 

the request. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 

an increase of $22.5 million in PE 35102BQ, line 213, for NGA 

WAAS PED. The committee’s recommendation would defer 

issuance of an RFP and contract award for the WAAS POR for at 

least 1 year. 

Global Positioning System augmentation 

The budget request included $446.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, for the Global Positioning 

System III space vehicle in PE 35265F line 212. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to study the idea of using 

mini-GPS satellites to augment the coverage of GPS III and heritage GPS satellites. The committee believes that there is a possibility that a mix of 24 GPS III satellites and 6 or more mini-GPS 

satellites could provide additional coverage in areas where it is difficult to acquire a GPS signal such as mountainous areas and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
85 

urban areas. It is also possible that additional mini-GPS satellites 

could fill any gaps in GPS coverage caused by on-orbit failures of 

a GPS satellite. 

The mini-GPS satellites would be small satellites using one of 

many existing small commercial satellite buses with L1, L2, and L5 

signals only, and no additional capabilities. The committee directs 

the Air Force to review the possibility of using mini-GPS satellites 

and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees setting forth the results of the review no later than December 1, 2010. 

The report should include an estimate of the cost of each mini-GPS 

satellite. 

Global Positioning System operating control segment 

The budget request included $828.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35265F line 212 for 

Global Positioning System III (GPS III) including $381.9 million for 

the operating control segment (OCX). 

The committee believes that the funds for the OCX should remain in PE 63423F line 33, where the funds where appropriated 

in fiscal year 2010 and separate from the funds for development of 

the GPS III space vehicle. The committee recommends a $381.9 

million reduction in line 212 and an increase in line 33 to effect 

the transfer. 

Joint Space Operation Center System 

The budget request included $132.7 million for the Joint Space 

Operation Center (JSpOC) system in Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35614F line 213. The JSpOC 

system is focused on upgrading the ability of the JSpOC to track, 

monitor, predict, and to respond in real time to events in space. 

The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million to continue 

the Karnac study, which is a joint Air Force and Department of 

Energy National Laboratory effort to utilize and modify existing capabilities developed to support the nuclear weapons program to improve the JSpOC capabilities, including using nontraditional data 

and three dimensional modeling and simulation capability. This is 

the second of a 2-year program. The committee urges the Air Force 

to include funds for the last year of Karnac in the fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

Nuclear detonation detection system 

The budget request included $72.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 35913F line 215 for the 

nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection system to detect, locate, and 

report any nuclear detonations in the atmosphere or in space. The 

committee recommends an additional $30.0 million to integrate the 

Space and Atmospheric Burst Reporting System (SABRS) on the 

fourth Space-based Infrared System Geosynchronous satellite 

(SBIRS GEO–4). SABRS is the follow-on to the NUDET system 

currently on the Defense Satellite Program satellites. The SABRS 

NUDET sensors were to be on all SBIRS GEO satellites. Although 

there are plans for initial SABRS sensors to be on other satellites 

there is no plan for the fourth SABRS sensor. In 2007, the Air 

Force committed to integrating the third SABRS sensor on the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
86 

GEO–3 satellite but later decided not to fund integration of any 

SABRS sensors on any SIBRS GEO satellites. The additional funds 

will ensure the SABRS NUDET sensor is integrated on the SBIRS 

GEO–4 satellite. 

Defense-wide 

Cognitive computing 

The budget request included $90.1 million in PE 62304E for cognitive computing, including $9.0 million for the development of a 

social networking site for veterans. The committee recommends a 

reduction of $9.0 million to terminate this specific project since its 

activities do not appear to align themselves with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s vision of addressing challenging 

problems. Furthermore, such activities, if truly deemed necessary, 

should be undertaken by either a service or an appropriate agency 

that has the necessary policy and legal expertise to ensure personal 

privacy and the confidentiality of health data on such a site. 

Advanced chem-bio protective materials 

The budget request included $169.3 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but no funds to 

develop advanced non-woven chemical and biological protective materials. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in 

PE 62384BP for development of non-woven advanced materials 

that are capable of protection and defeat against airborne chemical 

and biological agents and toxins. Such materials would have application for both individual and collective protection missions. 

Chemical and biological infrared detector 

The budget request included $169.3 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection technology. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62384BP 

to continue development and miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for chemical and biological agents. The objective is to demonstrate a functional prototype that operates at high 

speed and sensitivity with low false alarm rates. Such a system 

could reduce the logistical burden compared to other technologies. 

Department of Defense Research & Engineering Cyber security activities 

The budget request included two new budget lines for cyber security activities within Department of Defense Research & Engineering (DDR&E): $10.0 million in PE 62668D8Z for Cyber Security Research and $10.0 million in PE 63668D8Z for Cyber Security Advanced Technology Development. The committee notes the broad 

range of cyber security-related activities in the Department, including the services and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the lack of more coordination across these entities. 

The committee is concerned that DDR&E perceives the need to 

develop its own funding lines instead of working with the Department of Defense Office for Networks and Information Integration 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
87 

to coordinate and influence the services’ and DARPA’s activities in 

this arena. Hence, the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 

million in each of the above program element lines. 

Weapons of mass destruction analysis reachback tool 

The budget request included $212.7 million in PE 62718BR for 

research and development of weapons of mass destruction defeat 

technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62718BR for development of a decision-making and analysis tool for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide rapid 

analysis of chemical, biological, or radiological events to combatant 

commanders. The number of such reachback requests from combatant commands has increased significantly over the past several 

years, and there is a need for improved analysis and planning capabilities. 

Non-lethal weapons technology 

The budget request included $26.5 million in PE 1160401BB for 

Special Operations Technology Development. However, no funding 

was included for development of non-lethal weapons technology. 

Non-lethal weapons provide increased capabilities to special operations forces to engage and immobilize personnel and vehicles with 

minimal risk of significant injury or damage to the target. The 

Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a 

$3.0 million shortfall in funding for development of non-lethal 

weapons technologies for special operations specific missions and 

target sets. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the 

development of non-lethal weapons technologies for the U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Combating terrorism technologies 

The budget request included $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

combating terrorism technology support. The committee notes that 

improvised explosive devices continue to be a primary weapon of 

choice in attempted and successful acts of terrorism in the United 

States, against its friends and allies, and against our uniformed 

and civilian personnel in theater. In order to promote the development of advanced blast resistant construction materials and buildings, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for impact and blast loading laboratory testing technologies. 

Foreign language correlation and translation 

The budget request included $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z to develop and deliver capabilities that address needs and requirements 

with direct operational application to combating terrorism. Part of 

these efforts include technologies to capture, translate, and correlate information in multiple foreign languages. The committee 

recommends an increase of $1.0 million in this account for activities related to these efforts. 

Reconnaissance and data exploitation system 

The budget request included $85.3 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

development of technologies to support combating terrorism, but inVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
88 

cluded no funding to continue development of a reconnaissance and 

data exploitation system. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) needs improved intelligence, 

reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) tools. With the rapidly increasing and pervasive deployment of unmanned, limited payload 

ISR platforms such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), the need 

for minimal size, weight, and power ISR sensor systems is paramount. 

DOD has been developing a reconnaissance and data exploitation 

(REX) system that will allow sensors systems to fuse the output of 

hyperspectral imaging sensors and other electro-optic (EO) sensors 

and achieve integrated real time target detection capability. Because of its limited demands on platforms for space and weight, the 

REX payload promises to be able to integrate into a wide variety 

of airborne and ground-based platforms whose limited payload capacities have precluded such an option. In particular, REX will 

allow the rapidly expanding fleets of small military UAVs to: (1) 

take advantage of the powerful automated target detection inherent in multispectral sensors; and (2) enable sensor operators to cue 

high resolution EO sensors to support target identification. Completing development of the REX system should permit DOD to take 

better advantage of existing technologies, which should reduce the 

time needed to deploy capabilities to support the combatant commanders and also reduce the costs of doing so. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $7.0 million 

for developing the REX system. 

Plant-based vaccine development 

The budget request included $177.1 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced development, but no 

funds for using plants to produce vaccines against biological 

threats. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 

PE 63384BP for plant-based vaccine development, including a potential vaccine against multiple threat agents. The committee is 

aware of significant progress made by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in demonstrating the rapid production of 

candidate vaccines using plants. Advancing this potential could 

permit production of vaccines quickly after a biological threat or 

disease first appears. 

Defense Logistics Agency energy research 

The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics technology demonstrations. The Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) is responsible for acquiring and managing all of the 

fuel required by the military. The DLA energy readiness research 

and development program has thrust areas that include research 

on alternative energy, including fuel cells and the conversion of 

waste and biomass into fuels. Noting the strategic importance of 

reducing the military’s dependency on fossil fuels and in support of 

these objectives, the committee recommends an additional: $4.0 

million for biofuels research, $1.5 million for research on the conversion of biomass into logistics fuels, $8.0 million to continue the 

vehicle fuel cell and logistics program, and $2.0 million to accelVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
89 

erate the evaluation process of green products, primarily in the 

biofuel sector. 

The committee also recommends an additional $1.0 million to 

continue to improve the use of radio-frequency identification technology for better tracking across the DLA supply chain. 

Printed circuit board industrial assessment 

The budget request included $402.8 million in PE 63890C for ballistic missile defense enabling technologies, including $36.6 million for the Producibility and Manufacturing Technology project, 

but it included no funds to support the Department of Defense 

(DOD) Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board Technology. This 

Executive Agent position was created pursuant to section 256 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (P.L. 110–417) and is part of a partnership between the 

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Navy. The Executive Agent 

is intended to support the needs of DOD for assured high quality 

printed circuit boards in a variety of critical weapon systems. The 

committee directs that, of the funds available in PE 63890C, MDA 

use up to $2.0 million to support the Executive Agent to conduct 

an industrial capabilities assessment of the printed circuit board 

industrial sector, including the supply chain, to meet future DOD 

technology needs. The Executive Agent shall provide the industrial 

capabilities assessment to the congressional defense committees 

within 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

U.S.-Israeli short-range ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included $121.7 million in PE 63913C for 

U.S.-Israeli cooperative ballistic missile defense programs, including $46.7 million for co-development of a short-range ballistic missile defense system called ‘‘David’s Sling Weapon System.’’ This 

system is intended to provide an affordable defense of Israel 

against short-range missiles and long-range rockets of the type 

fired by Hezbollah from Lebanese territory in the summer of 2006. 

The United States is co-managing the development of the system 

to ensure that it is compatible with U.S. missile defense systems 

and to provide an option for the U.S. military to procure the system 

in the future, if needed. The committee recognizes that the threat 

to Israel from such short-range missiles and rockets has increased. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million 

to accelerate the development of the David’s Sling short-range ballistic missile defense system. 

The budget request included no funds for the Israeli ‘‘Iron Dome’’ 

short-range rocket defense system. However, in mid-May of 2010, 

the Department of Defense requested that Congress approve $205.0 

million of fiscal year 2011 funds to accelerate and expand Israeli 

procurement of the Iron Dome system. The committee recommends 

an increase of $205.0 million in PE 63913C for the Israeli Iron 

Dome system. 

Corrosion control research 

The budget request included $4.8 million in PE 64016D8Z for 

corrosion programs. In support of Department of Defense efforts to 

reduce maintenance costs due to corrosion, the committee recVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
90 

ommends an additional $3.0 million for corrosion research activities. 

Chem-bio defense system development and demonstration 

The budget request included $407.1 million in PE 64384BP for 

chemical and biological defense system development and demonstration, but no funds to continue developing a don/doff upgrade 

to the Joint Service Aircrew Mask (JSAM). The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 64384BP to continue 

developing a don/doff in-flight upgrade to the JSAM to permit aircrews to put on the mask quickly in flight if there is a chemical 

or biological threat present. This would obviate the need for aircrews to wear the mask when it is not needed. 

The committee understands from the Department of Defense that 

there is a funding imbalance in Budget Activity 5 for the Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative program. This results 

in requested funds that are excess to need and also in the wrong 

funding lines. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$15.0 million in PE 64384BP, and a transfer of a total of $50.0 million to funding lines for Budget Activities 1, 2, and 3, as reflected 

in the funding tables, and as indicated by the Department. 

Defense Technical Information Center unjustified growth 

The budget request included $61.1 million in PE 65801KA for the 

Defense Technical Information Center. This budget request represents an increase of $11.8 million over last year. The committee 

notes that the budget justification material does not adequately explain an increase of this amount and therefore recommends a decrease of $10.0 million. 

Center for Intelligence and Security Studies 

The budget request for PE 301301L for Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) 

within the General Defense Intelligence Program is classified. The 

committee recommends authorization of $3.0 million above the requested amount to sustain DIA’s program at the Center for Intelligence and Security Studies to improve the capability and quality 

of intelligence analysts and arranging internships with security 

clearances in the intelligence community. 

Technology development for tactical unmanned aerial systems 

The budget request included $16.3 million in PE 34210BB for the 

development of new capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance, including technology upgrades for tactical unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Tactical UASs are used heavily by 

special operations personnel for situational awareness and target 

acquisition. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

to continue development of technologies to improve the capabilities 

of tactical UASs by increasing payload, reducing noise signature, 

and improving engine performance. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
91 

Wide-area aerial tactical situation awareness 

The budget request included $16.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, in PE 34210BB for Special Applications for Contingencies for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The committee recommends an authorization of 

$1.7 million above the requested amount to assist SOCOM in integrating a new 413 megapixel wide-area airborne surveillance 

(WAAS) camera system on SOCOM’s Viking 400 unmanned aerial 

vehicle (UAV) system. This camera and the Viking 400 would provide a WAAS capability in between that which is being demonstrated by the Navy on the Shadow UAV and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the military services on the 

Reaper UAV and other large platforms. 

Center of excellence for geospatial science 

The budget request included classified amounts in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, in PE 35102BQ for 

the Defense Geospatial Intelligence Program. The committee recommends authorization of an additional $1.0 million to continue 

funding for the Center of Excellence for Geospatial Science, which 

provides scientific support for the National Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency as well as education and training for students seeking careers in the intelligence community. 

Industrial Base Innovation Fund and supply chain 

The budget request included $21.8 million in PE 78011S for Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manufacturing technology efforts. A 

February 2006 report by the Defense Science Board regarding the 

Department of Defense’s Manufacturing Technology Program 

points out that manufacturing technology plays a critical role in 

addressing development, acquisition, and sustainment problems associated with advanced weapons programs and recommended increased funding in this area. 

The committee recommends an additional $30.0 million to continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund program. The committee directs that DLA, jointly with the Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense for Industrial Policy, continue to make investments in 

manufacturing research that address defense industrial base shortfalls especially related to surge production requirements and diminishing sources of defense material. In addition, the committee 

also recommends an additional $2.0 million in support of the 

Northwest manufacturing initiative. 

Furthermore, to improve supply chain efficiencies, the committee 

recommends $1.5 million to PE 62705A to improve radio frequency 

identification tracking devices. 

Lithium ion battery safety research 

The budget request included $13.9 million in PE 1160483BB for 

the development of technologies for underwater systems used by 

special operations forces. Lithium ion technology has shown promise for reducing the size of batteries while also improving their performance characteristics. However, lithium ion battery technology 

needs additional development to improve safety for use in underVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
92 

water systems. The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million for lithium ion battery safety research. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution 

issues 

The budget request included $3.1 billion for the research and 

management activities of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (DARPA). A key change in the portfolio was a 59 percent 

increase in basic research funding activities compared to a 4 percent decrease in advanced technology development. The committee 

notes that while an increase in basic research is beneficial and reverses a trend that has affected the broader national science and 

technology enterprise, it is concerned that the ability to transition 

technology will be adversely impacted unless there is a more appropriate balance between basic research and advanced technology development. The committee will be monitoring the impacts of this 

portfolio adjustment over the coming year. 

In addition, while DARPA’s fiscal performance has notably improved, the committee is still concerned about the timeliness of sustained funding execution. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $143.4 million from DARPA’s overall budget to reflect continuing 

concerns about timely and effective execution of funds by the agency. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in PE 63892C for Aegis 

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) research and development, and 

$94.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide, for the procurement of 

eight Standard Missile 3 (SM–3) Block IB interceptors for the Aegis 

BMD system. In addition, the budget request includes funding in 

two new Aegis BMD-related funding lines to support the new 

Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe: 

$281.4 million in PE 64880C for development of land-based SM–3 

capabilities and $318.8 million in PE 64881C for co-development, 

with Japan, of the SM–3 Block IIA interceptor. 

The Aegis BMD system is the centerpiece of the PAA to missile 

defense in Europe, which will involve the deployment, at sea and 

on land, of four increasingly capable variants of the SM–3 interceptor (Blocks IA, IB, IIA, and IIB) over the four phases of the PAA 

from 2011 to 2020. Given its inherent mobility and flexibility, as 

well as its evolving capability to defend against all ranges of ballistic missiles from nations like Iran and North Korea, Aegis BMD 

will also be the core of other regional missile defense architectures, 

for example in the Middle East and East Asia. 

The committee strongly supports the development, testing, production, and deployment of operationally effective Aegis BMD and 

SM–3 capabilities in sufficient numbers to support the needs of regional combatant commanders and to implement the PAA in Europe. However, the committee has several concerns relating to the 

Aegis BMD program. 

First, the committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) is focused on production of the SM–3 Block IB, and is not 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
93 

planning production of more SM–3 IA interceptors. Consequently, 

the supplier base for unique SM–3 IA components will soon no 

longer be qualified to supply those components if needed in the future. If there is a problem or delay with the development of the 

SM–3 IB, a delay in the planned first flight test of the SM–3 IB, 

or the test is not successful, it would create a situation where no 

operational SM–3 interceptors (Block IA) can be produced, at a 

time when increasing the interceptor inventory is essential. The 

committee directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to consider 

what actions could be taken to mitigate this risk and expects DOD 

to take appropriate actions to keep SM–3 IA suppliers qualified 

and able to produce additional SM–3 IA if necessary, including the 

possibility of a reprogramming action with fiscal year 2010 funds. 

The committee is aware that MDA has studied a variety of such 

options and that there are near-term mitigation options available, 

including procurement of Block IA kill vehicle kits or additional 

Block IA interceptors, if action is taken before the suppliers go out 

of qualification. 

Second, the committee notes that the planned production schedule for the SM–3 IB has a steep increase between fiscal year 2011 

with 8 interceptors and fiscal year 2012 with 66 interceptors, an 

eightfold increase. Although the committee supports the objective 

of fielding adequate numbers of SM–3 Block IB interceptors after 

testing has demonstrated their capability, this will be a challenging 

ramp-up in the production rate. The committee is concerned that 

this planned production increase may cause unanticipated production problems, including production delays, similar to the experience with far lower production rates for the Block IA interceptor. 

The committee urges MDA to consider risk mitigation options for 

this steep production increase, including the possibility of budgeting some research and development funds to cope with production challenges. 

Third, the committee is concerned that the development effort for 

the SM–3 Block IIB missile is not currently being managed by the 

Aegis BMD program office, but rather within the MDA technology 

development program office. The significant milestones and capabilities achieved to date with the Aegis BMD program have resulted in large part from the close collaboration between the Aegis 

BMD program office and the Navy, which has more than 30 years 

of experience in the development, testing, fielding, and operation of 

the Standard Missile series and the Aegis Weapon System. The 

committee believes it is essential for this collaborative relationship 

to continue with respect to the SM–3 Block IIB program, and directs MDA to ensure that the Aegis BMD program office has the 

central role in the management of the Block IIB program. 

Finally, the current plan for deployment of the SM–3 Block IIB 

interceptor would be limited to deployment on land because of shipboard safety concerns related to the anticipated use of hypergolic 

fuels in the Block IIB interceptor. The committee directs MDA and 

the Navy to conduct an analysis of options for alternative technologies or practices that would permit the deployment of the SM– 

3 Block IIB on Aegis BMD ships, as well as on land, and to report 

to the congressional defense committees on the results of this analysis not later than April 30, 2011. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
94 

Ballistic missile defense overview 

The budget request included $9.9 billion for ballistic missile defense, including $8.4 billion for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), 

and $1.5 billion for Army and related missile defense programs. 

This represents an increase of nearly $700.0 million over the 

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee commends the administration for several important recent initiatives in ballistic missile defense, all of which are 

consistent with previous guidance from Congress. 

In September 2009, President Obama announced his decision to 

accept the unanimous recommendation of the Secretary of Defense 

and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to pursue the Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe. This approach, centered 

on the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system and its Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptor, will provide timely defensive capability against the existing and evolving Iranian ballistic missile 

threat to Europe and the potential threat to the United States in 

the future. (Several Aegis BMD program management concerns are 

described elsewhere in this report.) 

In February 2010, the Department of Defense released the report 

of the first-ever Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), which 

was required by section 234 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), initiated by 

the committee. The BMDR provided a comprehensive review of 

U.S. missile defense strategy, policies, plans, and programs. 

The BMDR established six policy priorities that are guiding the 

current and planned missile defense program: 1) the United States 

will continue to defend the Homeland against the threat of limited 

ballistic missile attacks; 2) the United States will defend against 

regional missile threats to U.S. forces, while protecting allies and 

partners and enabling them to defend themselves; 3) before new capabilities are deployed, they must undergo testing that enables assessment under realistic operational conditions; 4) the commitment 

to new capabilities must be fiscally sustainable over the long-term; 

5) U.S. BMD capabilities must be flexible enough to adapt as 

threats change; and 6) the United States will seek to lead expanded international efforts for missile defense. 

As Secretary of Defense Gates stated in his letter of transmittal 

of the BMDR report, ‘‘If fully implemented in coming years, the 

plans reflected here will significantly improve the security of the 

United States and its allies while also enhancing international stability.’’ The committee shares this view. 

Consistent with the BMDR, and in order to implement the PAA 

and to fulfill the missile defense needs of regional combatant commanders, the budget request included funds to increase the 

planned inventory of SM–3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, as Congress had previously directed. 

The current plan is for 436 SM–3 Block IA and IB interceptors by 

2015 and for 9 THAAD batteries with 431 interceptors by 2015, an 

increase of nearly 250 interceptors above plans announced for fiscal 

year 2010. This represents a significant enhancement in the capacity to defend our forward deployed forces, allies, and partners 

against the existing threat of short- and medium-range missiles 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
95 

and against the evolving regional missile threat. According to Secretary Gates, this effort is a ‘‘top priority.’’ 

The budget request also included funds for new sensor programs 

to enhance the performance of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(BMDS) against missiles of all ranges. One such initiative is the 

Airborne Infrared (ABIR) program, which seeks to develop unmanned aerial vehicles with the ability to provide early and accurate missile tracking data to regional missile defense systems like 

Aegis BMD at sea and on land. Such an ABIR capability could permit early intercepts of missiles in their ascent phase of flight, before they can deploy countermeasures. It would also improve defense against attacks with numerous missiles, such as those practiced in recent years by North Korea and Iran. 

Another new sensor initiative is the Precision Tracking Space 

System (PTSS). The MDA concept is that an operational low-earth 

orbit (LEO) infrared satellite, such as PTSS, would improve significantly the ability to track, throughout their post-boost flight, missiles from countries such as Iran and North Korea. The precision 

tracking capability that could be provided by such a LEO satellite 

constellation could enable earlier interceptor launches and earlier 

intercepts of missiles in flight, including against numerous missiles, thus improving defensive capability significantly. 

The MDA has adopted a novel approach to developing prototypes 

for the PTSS that should ensure mature technical readiness levels 

are achieved before any decision is made to procure operational satellites. This approach includes support from government laboratories and the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. Since 

an operational PTSS system would have to be part of the overhead 

persistent infrared architecture operated by the Air Force, an early 

and close relationship with the Air Force is necessary to ensure a 

smooth transition to the Air Force, and MDA appears to be planning such a relationship. The committee expects an operational 

PTSS to be compatible with the Air Force multi-mission space operation center protocols. The committee believes MDA and the Air 

Force should explore concepts wherein the MDA would control the 

prototype payloads and the Air Force would control the prototype 

satellites. 

The committee supports the approach adopted by MDA for establishing requirements and developing PTSS prototypes, and believes 

that MDA should consider taking advantage of the platform potential that a PTSS prototype would provide and explore the option of 

including a technically mature visible-band surveillance sensor, in 

addition to the infrared sensor, as part of the prototyping effort— 

as long as it would not delay or otherwise interfere with the PTSS 

prototype development effort. 

As stated in the BMDR, because of the Ground-based Midcourse 

Defense (GMD) system deployed in Alaska and California, ‘‘the 

United States is currently protected against the threat of a limited 

ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] attack.’’ In addition to the 

30 operational Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) planned for the 

system, the Department is planning to complete installation of 7 

spare silos in Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely, Alaska, as a hedge 

against the potential future expansion of a long-range missile 

threat from a country such as North Korea or Iran. The DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
96 

ment does not intend to procure operational interceptors for these 

silos, but would have the option of emplacing stockpiled test or 

spare interceptors in them in the future, as a contingency operational capability, in case the need should arise. 

As part of Phase 1 of the PAA, the Department is planning to 

deploy a forward-based THAAD-type radar, designated AN/TPY–2, 

in southern Europe in the 2011 timeframe. In addition to enhancing the European regional defensive capability of the PAA systems, 

this deployment will provide substantially improved and earlier 

missile tracking information of potential future long-range Iranian 

missile launches. This improved information would enhance the 

performance of the GMD system against such a potential future 

Iranian missile threat to the United States and could permit the 

GMD system to operate in a ‘‘shoot-look-shoot’’ mode, rather than 

firing two GBIs at each target missile. This could effectively double 

the number of potential Iranian threat missiles that the existing 

GMD system could engage. 

The committee notes that section 232 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the Department to submit to the congressional defense committees, at the time of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, a report 

containing an assessment and plan for the GMD system. This report was to provide information on the Department’s plans for 

maintaining and sustaining the GMD system through its service 

life. The committee is disappointed that the required report was 

not submitted on time and still has not been received as of midMay. The intent of Congress in requiring the report at the same 

time as the budget request was to ensure that the report would be 

available for consideration during deliberations on the fiscal year 

2011 budget request. By failing to submit the report, even within 

3 months of the deadline, the Department has not only failed to 

meet the intent of Congress, but has prevented the committee from 

being able to consider the results of the report. The committee expects more timely responses to requirements in law. 

One of the major policy initiatives of the BMDR is the requirement for operationally realistic testing to demonstrate the capability of missile defense systems before they are deployed. This ‘‘fly 

before you buy’’ approach is long overdue and is consistent both 

with longstanding congressional direction and normal acquisition 

practice for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. In order to ensure adequate testing of its systems, MDA has created a new Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) that takes the evaluation-based 

testing approach long recommended by the Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation. This approach seeks to provide the specific information needed to validate and verify models and simulations 

necessary to understand and have confidence in the performance of 

the BMDS. For the first time, the IMTP includes plans for dedicated operational tests to demonstrate the capability of missile defense systems. The committee believes this is an important and 

necessary step in fielding effective missile defense systems. 

The committee notes that the MDA targets program is still a 

major concern for the missile defense test program, and for the successful development of effective missile defense systems. A number 

of notable target failures, such as the air-launched target for 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
97 

THAAD flight test 11, have been very costly and have caused significant delays. The committee believes that MDA needs to further 

improve the quality, reliability, and affordability of its targets. 

The committee notes its serious concern with contractor quality 

control problems experienced by MDA. The committee commends 

MDA for focusing on quality problems and encourages MDA to continue taking a strong approach to demanding and enforcing quality 

control with its contractors, including seeking defects clauses and 

warranties in any new contracts, and any other appropriate means 

of holding contractors accountable for their performance. The committee believes it is unacceptable for contractors to produce components and systems that do not meet the quality standards required 

to provide effective defense against ballistic missiles, and that the 

government should not pay for defective or inferior products. 

Coordination of the Minerva Program, the Human Social 

Cultural Behavior Modeling Program, and Strategic 

Multi-layer Assessment efforts 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for investing in research activities related to improving its basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that 

shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the Nation, 

as well as understanding the dynamics of terrorist and other irregular warfare actors. Currently, activities related to this area that 

are being pursued include the Minerva Program, the Human Social 

Cultural Behavior Modeling Program, as well as Strategic Multilayer Assessment efforts. 

However, the committee notes that given the broad range of activities and the importance of this work, it is not clear that appropriate coordination and collaboration is occurring to maximize 

synergies between various research communities and to avoid unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, it is not clear how the results 

of these efforts will directly inform and impact broader counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies, psychological operations 

and other counter influence activities and efforts to counter violent 

extremism. 

Hence, the committee requests that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director of Defense Research and Engineering submit a report by September 1, 2011, to the congressional 

defense committees describing coordinating mechanisms between 

the above mentioned activities and plans for how the results of the 

Department’s research efforts will be used to aid counterterrorism 

and counterinsurgency strategies, psychological operations and 

other counter influence plans, and efforts to counter violent extremism. 

Defense Science Board study on cyber research and development 

Section 931 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required that the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) 

provide a report by March 1, 2010, which has not yet been delivered, on a strategy for organizing the research and development orVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
98 

ganizations within the Department of Defense to develop ‘‘leapahead’’ cyber operations. 

The committee directs that the Defense Science Board (DSB) conduct an independent assessment for the USD (AT&L) of this strategy and its implementation over the course of fiscal year 2011, and 

report to the USD (AT&L) by February 1, 2012. The committee directs that the DSB also examine the research budgets and plans 

for cyberwarfare and cybersecurity of the military services and the 

defense agencies and evaluate whether the level of investment and 

the planned activities will meet the future needs of the Department. The committee intends that this report shall be available for 

congressional review no later than March 1, 2012. 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation personnel 

issues 

The committee is aware that test and evaluation activities have 

increased in complexity and scope over the past several years. As 

the demands of these test and evaluation activities have increased, 

the demands have also increased on the activities of the Office of 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). 

The committee is concerned that, as test and evaluation demands 

have increased on DOT&E, their personnel capabilities have not 

kept pace with the demands. Therefore, the committee directs 

DOT&E to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

not later than January 15, 2011, containing a DOT&E strategic 

workforce plan, including DOT&E personnel requirements, allocations, resources, and plans, to manage the increased complexity 

and demands of test and evaluation activities performed by 

DOT&E. 

High speed encryption 

Both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) are developing very high-speed 

encryption technology. The NSA approach is significantly less expensive and will be fielded soon. The more expensive and longerterm NRO approach would provide on-demand protocol agility. The 

committee’s examination thus far of this issue casts doubt on the 

need for such agility and therefore the need for the large NRO investment. The administration has assured the committee that a 

joint NRO-NSA study is underway to determine what capabilities 

are required in the future. The committee directs that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration, 

in coordination with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, assume oversight of this study and provide a report to the 

congressional defense and intelligence committees by February 1, 

2011. 

Integrated Sensor is Structure 

The budget request included $303.1 million in PE 63286E for Advanced Aerospace Systems. Of that amount, $103.4 million supports persistent or responsive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) programs, including Vulture and Integrated Sensor 

is Structure (ISIS). As noted last year, the committee is concerned 

that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
99 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the military departments 

have numerous persistent or responsive ISR capabilities in development and transition plans for a number of DARPA programs to the 

services are not clear. 

In particular, the committee is concerned about the future direction of ISIS. While the committee understands the vital need for 

a long-duration, large aperture capability, the transition plan for 

ISIS is being called into question with recent Air Force funding actions. Hence, the committee will continue to monitor the progress 

of this program in order to ensure that this operational gap is addressed in the most cost-effective manner. 

In addition, the committee notes that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) is pursuing a wide variety of air vehicles, classified as 

aerostats, airships, and rigid aeroshell variable buoyancy vehicles, 

and directs DOD to provide the congressional defense committees 

with a report by March 1, 2011, that reviews the status and future 

plans of these programs to ensure that the most cost-effective systems are being pursued and that the highest priority science and 

technology challenges for persistent unmanned capabilities are 

being addressed. 

Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft prognostics 

The budget request included $929.3 million in PE 65500N for the 

Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program that is developing 

a replacement for the P–3 maritime patrol aircraft. In the MMA 

program, the Navy is developing the P–8A aircraft, a derivative of 

the commercial B–737 aircraft. 

As a part of the overall P–8 development program, the Navy is 

funding prognostics and health management technologies that are 

included in a performance based service specification contract. 

Development of the overall P–8 program appears to be proceeding well, but the committee is concerned that the Navy may be 

giving insufficient attention and funding to the prognostics and 

health management technologies for this aircraft. The committee 

has heard allegations that the Navy may have diverted funds budgeted for these programs to solve other emerging problems. If the 

Navy were to forego embedding such technologies in the new production aircraft, it will have little opportunity to add them later. 

The committee believes that diverting funds from prognostics 

and health management development activities would be incredibly 

short-sighted. Such a diversion may help solve near-term problems 

with other parts of the development program, but that runs the 

risk of saddling the fleet with an aircraft that would be more difficult and more expensive to maintain for decades to come. The 

Navy should take action to ensure that the MMA program and 

other new aircraft programs adopt advanced preventative and predictive technologies to the maximum extent practicable, in order to 

promote safety for our aircrews and enhance mission readiness of 

the aircraft. 

Multiple User Objective System 

The budget request included $405.7 million for the Multiple User 

Objective System (MUOS) in Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, Navy, PE 33109N line 194. The MUOS provides 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
100 

narrowband ultra high frequency (UHF) satellite communications 

capability to a wide variety of users. The committee notes that the 

MUOS program is more than 2 years behind schedule and that several of the current UHF satellites on orbit have lost capability and 

capacity or failed earlier than expected. The committee has been 

concerned for several years that there will be a gap or decreased 

availability of UHF communications. 

Congress has supported efforts to develop additional on orbit 

UHF capacity including the idea of hosted payloads. Although the 

Navy started a hosted payload program in 2008 to provide additional UHF capacity, it was cancelled in 2009. As a result the Navy 

was forced to look at ways to augment UHF capability using existing satellite systems. While this exercise has been productive there 

is still not enough UHF capacity. As a result the Navy finally decided to explore again commercial options for UHF capability and 

recently issued a request for sources to provide that capability. The 

committee fully supports long-term UHF augmentation not only to 

protect against further slips in the MUOS program but also to protect any additional unforeseen failures of existing capacity. 

If, in reviewing the responses to the sources-sought notice, the 

Navy determines that it needs additional authority or other assistance the committee urges the Navy to inform it promptly. 

Report on implementation of industry standardized hardware and software interfaces 

The committee is interested in exploring opportunities to ensure 

that various aerospace and other systems adopt and use industry 

standard interfaces. This would include common hardware and 

software modules to increase compatibility and move to more plug 

and play like concepts. The committee directs the Air Force to review options for implementing a modular, scalable, and rapidly 

deployable avionics standard for aerospace vehicles and report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than March 1, 2011, on the feasibility and 

affordability of such an approach. 

Test Resources Management Center 

In fiscal year 2010, the committee recommended increases to PE 

64759A and PE 64759F to strengthen the Department of Defense’s 

test and evaluation capabilities. The committee understands that 

the Test Resources Management Center (TRMC) is performing a 

review of the service’s test and evaluation investments and looks 

forward to the results of such a review with the submission of the 

fiscal year 2012 budget. The committee also encourages the TRMC 

to discuss any issues with its workforce that may be associated 

with increased testing and evaluation requirements across the Department. The committee continues to encourage the services to 

continue to work more closely with the TRMC in order for them to 

perform their responsibilities regarding oversight and management 

of the Department’s test and evaluation enterprise that is critically 

important for the successful fielding of weapon systems. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(101) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Explanation of tables 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with the Twin Cities Army 

Ammunition Plant, Minnesota (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to transfer not more than $5,620,000 in fiscal year 2011 to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Hazardous 

Substance Superfund to reimburse the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for past costs relating to the response actions performed at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant located in 

Arden Hills, Minnesota. 

Established in 1941, the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant 

(TCAAP) produced various types of ammunition for about the next 

30 years. In 1983, the TCAAP was placed on the National Priority 

List and is currently an active Superfund site. In 1987, the Department of the Army entered into an agreement with the EPA and the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that covered the cleanup 

project at the TCAAP. The agreement provided for, among other 

things, the recovery of expenses incurred by the EPA. Specifically, 

the agreement provided that the EPA would submit to the Army 

accountings for ‘‘costs incurred in performing oversight of this 

Agreement and costs of response actions’’ related to the TCAAP 

cleanup. Over the ensuring years, EPA submitted to the Army various such accountings for costs incurred pursuant to this agreement. Despite the terms of the agreement, however, the Army has 

not reimbursed the EPA apparently because the Army lacked the 

authority to transfer the funds. 

The provision would authorize the Army to transfer not more 

than $5,620,000 for costs incurred by the EPA and is intended by 

the committee to fully satisfy the costs incurred by EPA related to 

the cleanup at TCAAP pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 

Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of stipulated 

penalties in connection with Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer not more than $153,000 to the 

Hazardous Substance Superfund for the payment of a stipulated 

penalty assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 

June 12, 2008, against Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine, for 

failure of the Navy to timely sample certain monitoring wells purVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
102 

suant to a schedule included in a Federal Facility Agreement entered into between the Navy and the EPA for Naval Air Station, 

Brunswick on October 19, 1990. 

Requirements relating to Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry investigation of exposure to drinking 

water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 

(sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to take certain actions to ensure that the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has access to all documents, records, and electronic data that is relevant 

to studies of contamination and remediation of drinking water systems at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The provision also would 

restrict the use of funds for the administrative processing or adjudication of claims filed regarding water contamination at Camp 

Lejeune and would require the Secretary of the Navy to report to 

the congressional defense committees when disputes between the 

Navy and the ATSDR cannot be resolved within 60 days of the dispute arising. 

Commission on Military Environmental Exposures (sec. 314) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to establish a Commission on Military Environmental 

Exposures that would provide expert advice to the President and 

Congress on exposures of current and former members of the 

armed forces and their dependants to environmental hazards on 

military installations. The Commission would consist of nine members appointed by the President, after consultation with the leadership of the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs of 

the Senate and House of Representatives. The Commission would 

have 1 year after convening to review the matter and report to the 

President. The President would then submit the report to the designated congressional committees within 90 days. 

The committee believes that this Commission is needed to provide independent, expert advice to the President and Congress on 

this important issue. The need for the Commission has been demonstrated by a number of cases of potential environmental exposure 

at military installations. For example, at the Marine Corps Base 

Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, military members and their families may have been exposed to contaminated drinking water from 

wells on the base in the early 1980s and earlier. Since then, the 

Department of the Navy and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry have been struggling to determine the nature and 

extent of such exposures and whether and to what degree service 

members and their families stationed at Camp Lejeune during that 

period might have developed adverse health conditions as a result 

of the exposure. In another example, service members and families 

stationed at Naval Air Facility (NAF), Atsugi, Japan, may have 

been exposed to hazardous air emissions from a privately-owned 

waste incinerator located just outside the fence line of the base. As 

with the Camp Lejeune situation, the possible exposures have been 

studied and subsequent illnesses have been documented, but the 

connection between the exposures and the subsequent health condiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
103 

tions remains largely unknown. In both the Camp Lejeune and the 

NAF Atsugi situations, the facts indicate exposure to some level of 

environmental hazard and members of the military populations 

who lived at those installations report various adverse health conditions. What remains elusive is the extent to which those exposures caused or contributed to the health condition and whether 

there are better ways for the Federal Government to respond to, 

address and, as warranted, provide compensation or health benefits 

as a remedy to these potential exposures. 

As a result of these situations and others, and in recognition of 

the likelihood that similar such situations will arise in the future, 

the committee recommends this Commission review the potential 

for exposure to environmental hazards at military installations and 

to provide advice on how to handle these matters in the future. The 

Commission would not be tasked with providing recommendation 

or advice on specific exposures at particular military installations, 

but would instead review the broader issue of exposures at military 

installations generally and make recommendations on how best to 

handle them, including evaluating risk, addressing possible health 

concerns, and responding to requests for redress. The provision 

would also require the Commission to inventory those military installations on the National Priority List and estimate the magnitude of the exposures at those sites and the number of people potentially exposed. 

The provision expressly states that the Commission shall in no 

way be interpreted to delay, encroach on, or impede any studies, 

reviews, assessments, or remediation associated with environmental hazards. Instead, the Commission’s work should proceed 

without affect on work being done in connection with assessment 

and remedy for any specific military installation, including Camp 

Lejeune and NAF Atsugi. 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues 

Depot level maintenance and recapitalization parts supply 

(sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires a report, no 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, from the 

Director of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), on the status of 

the DLA Joint Logistics Operations Center’s drawdown, retrograde, 

and reset program for the equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The report shall also include: the status of the overall supply chain 

management of repairing this materiel; the scope of operation to repair and re-supply materiel to the military services, including projected costs and lists of major components needed; the current and 

projected timeline for the completion of the drawdown, retrograde, 

and reset program in Iraq; the percentage and level of expected refurbishment to take place in the United States and the percentage 

and level of expected refurbishment overseas; and a comprehensive 

assessment of parts management, including a timeline of cumulative backlogs or parts on backorder, impacts on projected manufacturing competition time, and plans to reduce and minimize backlogs in parts availability. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
104 

Subtitle D—Energy Security 

Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

goals for the alternative aviation fuel initiative of the Air Force. 

The provision would also require the submission of reports by the 

Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Defense Science Board. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Additional limitation on indemnification of United States 

with respect to articles and services sold by workingcapital funded Army industrial facilities and arsenals 

outside the Department of Defense (sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4543 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that Army arsenals and industrial facilities can sell their products and services 

outside the Department of Defense (DOD) on the same terms and 

conditions as other industrial facilities of DOD. 

The committee expects the Army to use this authority to enhance 

the core capabilities of the arsenals and industrial facilities only in 

cases where the products or services are not available from any 

commercial source in the United States and the sale of such products or services outside of DOD is consistent with the interests of 

national security. 

Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI) authority for 1 fiscal 

year and awaits the findings of the comprehensive depot study before making an informed decision on the future of ASPI. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) extended the ASPI for 1 year and is currently 

set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2011. In the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and House of Representatives directed a comprehensive depot 

study to assess a wide range of manufacturing and depot maintenance activities to include ASPI. The committee has yet to receive 

the completed report. 

The committee notes that since Congress established ASPI in 

2001 as a demonstration program for Army arsenals, the program 

has yet to sustain core capabilities of the arsenals and other industrial facilities and by extension enhance military readiness. ASPI 

has instead been primarily used to rent excess arsenal administrative office space to commercial tenants, which tends to be more 

profitable than leasing manufacturing space, according to detailed 

analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 

A November 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that of the 44 commercial tenants on Army industrial facilities, only 4 are engaged in activities that have helped to 

strengthen the arsenals’ core manufacturing capabilities or related 

workforce skills. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
105 

The committee is very concerned that through July 2009, the Army has received over $73.0 million for ASPI through congressionally directed funds in annual appropriations and authorization 

Acts. CBO analysis has revealed an annualized real return-on-capital of 1.25 percent on obligations and 1.62 percent on outlays 

through 2008. 

Furthermore, the November 2009 GAO report found that ‘‘the 

Army has missed an opportunity to ensure that program execution 

is aligned with its own priorities because Army guidance does not 

specify which of the authority’s 11 purposes the Army considers to 

be its highest priorities . . . the Army has not established performance goals and measures for ASPI.’’ 

The committee notes the Army has not developed guidance nor 

incorporated the priorities identified in the conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008, (Public Law 110–181) which encouraged the Army to recruit 

more tenants that enhance the arsenals’ core missions and workforce skills. Furthermore, the November 2009 GAO report found 

that ‘‘while the Army has developed some metrics to assess the program, existing metrics measure only the number of ASPI contracts 

secured and cost savings or cost avoidance to the Army, rather 

than the extent to which the program is making progress toward 

achieving the broad goals represented by the purposes established 

in the ASPI authority.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

determine the highest priorities among the 11 ASPI purposes as a 

component of a comprehensive strategy to achieve its desired results, establish performance goals for ASPI, and establish outcomefocused performance metrics to assess the progress the Army has 

made toward addressing the 11 ASPI purposes, including securing 

tenants that could use any existing skilled workforce and provide 

for the reemployment and retraining of skilled manufacturing 

workers. 

The committee directs that the aforementioned report be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days 

after the enactment of this act. 

The committee remains concerned that the cost savings to the 

Army have not been significant and continues to encourage the 

Army to explore the use of other existing and readily available authorities to accomplish the same goals as ASPI as detailed in enclosure 2 of the November 2009 GAO report. 

Four-year extension of authority to provide logistics support and services for weapons systems contractors (sec. 

343) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 365(g)(1) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) 

by extending the September 30, 2010, sunset to September 30, 

2014. 

The committee notes this provision would not change the authorities already granted by Congress, but would simply extend the 

program for 4 more years. This provision was requested by the Department of Defense to allow continued exploration of potential 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
106 

projects and to develop an evaluation to be submitted to Congress 

as to whether the authorities should be made permanent or allowed to expire. 

The committee supports the Department’s current emphasis on 

competitive procurements to support major weapon systems and 

concur there should be more opportunities available for the Defense 

Logistics Agency to provide the efficient and effective support envisioned by this program. 

The committee notes this provision is budget neutral as it does 

not impact amounts appropriated. 

Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense 

property (sec. 344) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

sale or other disposition of Department of Defense (DOD) property 

except in accordance with statutes and regulations governing such 

property. If property is disposed of in violation of this prohibition, 

the property would be subject to seizure by appropriate law enforcement officials. The appropriate federal district court would 

have jurisdiction to determine whether property was improperly 

disposed of and is subject to seizure. 

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported 

that sensitive and stolen U.S. military items are available for purchase on the internet. Items offered for sale included sensitive 

parts for F–14 fighters, chemical and biological gear, night vision 

goggles, and infrared patches used to identify U.S. troops on the 

battlefield. GAO also reported that certain civilian store owners 

were acting as conduits for defense-related property—including 

Kevlar vests, flak jackets, and gas masks—that were likely stolen 

from the military. 

DOD has informed the committee that: 

‘‘. . . the hazards posed by improperly disposed DOD 

property include the use, by Taliban fighters, of American 

infrared uniform patches, available on the internet, to 

avoid American attacks and get close to American targets 

(Afghanistan, June 2009); the use of stolen military uniforms by Al Qaeda to execute an attack on the American 

Embassy in Yemen, resulting in the death of sixteen people (September 2008); the use, by insurgents in Karbala, 

Iraq, of American military uniforms to enter a U.S. military compound, resulting in the deaths of five American 

service members (January 2007); and the use of American 

military-grade communications systems, available online, 

to coordinate terrorist attacks in ten locations in Mumbai, 

India, resulting in 173 deaths and 308 injuries (November 

2008).’’ 

The committee concludes that DOD needs effective statutory authority to address the improper disposal of DOD property and ensure the recovery of such property regardless of to whom it was 

furnished and who was responsible for its improper disposal. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
107 

Commercial sale of small arms ammunition in excess of military requirements (sec. 345) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make available the commercial sale of small arms ammunition and ammunition components in excess of military requirements, including fired 

cartridge cases, which are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale or certified by the Secretary of Defense as unserviceable 

or unsafe. 

The provision also specifies that no small arms ammunition and 

ammunition components in excess of military requirements may be 

made available for commercial sale under this provision before 

such ammunition and ammunition components are offered for 

transfer or purchase, as authorized by law, to another Federal department or agency, or for sale to state and local law enforcement, 

firefighting, homeland security, and emergency management agencies pursuant to section 2576 of title 10, United States Code. 

Modification of authorities relating to prioritization of 

funds for equipment readiness and strategic capability 

(sec. 346) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 323 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to address concerns 

about the adequacy of the information that the Army provides to 

Congress on the costs of equipping and manning the modular force. 

Specifically, the recommended amendment would streamline the 

statutory language to clarify the Army’s reporting requirements 

and remove a reporting element concerning the Army’s definition 

of costs of modularity versus costs of modernization and reset. 

The recommended amendment would also add several new reporting elements, including sections that would address equipment 

items and personnel specialties identified as ‘‘key enablers’’ that 

make the modular force as or more capable than non-modular units 

it replaced. In particular, the Army would be required to report on 

its key enabler requirements, on hand items, planned purchases, 

authorized and actual personnel levels, and shortfalls projected 

throughout the period covered by the future-years defense program. 

This additional information would better assist Congress in understanding the true costs of equipping and manning the Army’s modular force. 

Additionally, the recommended amendment would update the 

Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) reporting requirement 

and link it to the Army’s annual report. This approach would allow 

the GAO to provide Congress with more complete, useful, and up 

to date information than as currently provided by section 323. The 

amendment would require GAO to provide an assessment of the 

Army’s report, but would also give GAO the discretion to provide 

additional information as appropriate. 

Finally, the recommended amendment would extend the reporting requirements to 2017 to encompass the likely period following 

the drawdown of overseas contingency operations for which significant resources may be required to continue Army equipment and 

personnel reset. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
108 

Repeal of requirement for reports on withdrawal or diversion of equipment from Reserve units for support of Reserve units being mobilized and other units (sec. 347) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for a quarterly report from the Secretary of Defense covering withdrawals or diversions of equipment from reserve components as provided for in section 349 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 109– 

346). The intent of section 349 at the time of its enactment was to 

provide oversight of equipment transfers out of the reserve components in support of the growing requirement of Operations Iraqi 

Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Since that time, operational 

equipment demands have largely stabilized and plans for U.S. 

forces drawdown from Iraq render this quarterly report less relevant. Additionally, information provided to Congress by the Department in the annual National Guard and Reserves Equipment 

Report and in Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress allow sufficient insight for oversight of reserve component equipment issues. 

Revision to authorities relating to transportation of civilian 

passengers and commercial cargoes by Department of 

Defense when space unavailable on commercial lines 

(sec. 348) 

The committee recommends a provision that amend section 2649 

of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) expand the means by which 

transportation may be provided to civilian passengers and commercial cargo to include vehicles and aircraft operated by the Department of Defense (DOD); and (2) when such transportation is provided in response to an emergency, disaster response, or humanitarian request, allow DOD to credit any amounts received in reimbursement to the appropriation, fund, or account incurring the expense of providing the transportation. 

Section 2649 of title 10, United States Code, currently authorizes 

the Secretary of Defense to transport civilian passengers and commercial cargoes on vessels operated by DOD, when such transportation is not commercially available. Under the current language, 

reimbursement must be made at rates not less than those charged 

by commercial companies for the same services, and amounts received are deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

The committee expects that the use of any expanded authority 

granted under the revision to section 2649 will continue to be limited to emergency, humanitarian, and similar exceptional circumstances. 

Budget Items 

Navy 

Readiness support for Navy unfunded aircraft maintenance 

priorities 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $1.2 billion was for aircraft 

depot maintenance. One of only three unfunded requirements submitted by the Chief of Naval Operations was aircraft depot mainteVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
109 

nance. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before the committee that this unfunded requirement is executable, would directly 

support and restore Naval readiness, and ‘‘buy down our backlog 

of air frames and engines’’. 

The committee notes that these same unfunded priorities were 

identified in fiscal year 2010 but were not fully supported by the 

Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives. As a result a 1-year backlog of deferred aircraft depot 

maintenance was not executed. The committee is concerned that 

failure to address this backlog and failure to support this unfunded 

request for active and reserve aircraft depot maintenance in fiscal 

year 2011 for active and reserve units will continue to jeopardize 

and erode aircraft materiel readiness, further reduce the service 

life of the fleet, increase long-term sustainment costs, and further 

increase strategic risk for the Nation. 

Additionally, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before 

the committee that failure to support unfunded aircraft depot 

maintenance requirements could result in reducing flying hours 

and deferred training exercises which are vital to naval readiness 

and our responsibility to maintain a trained and equipped force. 

Exacerbating the issue, increased operational tempo in the United 

States Central Command area of operations has already resulted 

in added materiel strain on the fleet. 

The committee continues to urge the Secretary of the Navy and 

Chief of Naval Operations to fully restore ship depot maintenance 

requirements in fiscal year 2012 base budget request. The committee recommends an increase of $74.0 million in OMN 

for aircraft depot maintenance to fund 21 deferred airframes and 

342 deferred engines. 

Readiness support for Navy unfunded ship maintenance priorities 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $4.7 billion was for ship depot 

maintenance. One of only three unfunded requirements submitted 

by the Chief of Naval Operations was ship depot maintenance. The 

Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before the committee that 

this unfunded requirement is executable and would directly support and restore Naval readiness. 

The committee notes that these same unfunded priorities were 

identified in fiscal year 2010 but were not fully supported by the 

Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives. As a result a 1-year backlog of deferred ship depot 

maintenance was not executed. The committee is concerned that 

failure to address this backlog and failure to support this unfunded 

request for ship depot maintenance in fiscal year 2011 for active 

and reserve ships will continue to jeopardize and erode ship materiel readiness, further reduce the service life of the fleet, increase 

long-term sustainment costs, and further increase strategic risk for 

the Nation. 

Additionally, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations testified before 

the committee that failure to support unfunded ship depot maintenance requirements could result in deferred port visits and deferred training exercises which are vital to fleet readiness and our 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
110 

responsibility to maintain a trained and equipped force. Exacerbating the issue, increased operational tempo in the United States 

Central Command area of operations has already resulted in added 

materiel strain on the fleet. 

The committee continues to urge the Secretary of the Navy and 

Chief of Naval Operations to fully restore ship depot maintenance 

requirements in fiscal year 2012 base budget request. 

The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in OMN 

for ship depot maintenance to fund nine deferred surface ship nondocking availabilities. 

Air Force 

Air Force amended budget submission for C–130s 

In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Air Force requested 

to move C–130s from the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force 

Reserve to active duty. The committee notes a recent request from 

the Air Force asks to reverse this move and keep the C–130s in the 

reserve component. 

The committee notes this budget rearrangement which moves the 

C–130 aircraft back into the reserve component includes all weapon 

system sustainment funding appropriate for fiscal year 2011. While 

flying hours for these aircraft will remain in the active duty appropriation for fiscal year 2011, it is the Air Force’s intent in fiscal 

year 2012 and the out years to transfer the flying hours back to 

the specific reserve component accounts. The committee notes these 

flying hours will be fenced in a training program element to be 

used specifically for primary flight training at Little Rock, Arkansas, while the requirement remains. 

Additionally, the committee notes that six C–130s in the Puerto 

Rico ANG unit will not be retired in fiscal year 2011. The committee notes that adequate funds exist in the ANG program to operate these aircraft through the end of fiscal year 2011. 

Readiness support for Air Force unfunded weapons system 

sustainment priorities 

The budget request included $46.0 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) of which $3.2 billion was for depot 

maintenance and weapon system sustainment (WSS). WSS is the 

number one priority in unfunded requirements submitted by the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force in fiscal year 2011. The Vice Chief 

of the Air Force testified before the committee that this unfunded 

requirement is executable and would directly support and restore 

Air Force readiness. 

The committee is very concerned that the Air Force only funded 

WSS at approximately 65 percent of their requirement in the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request, and that requirement only increases to 

approximately 82 percent of their WSS requirement if Other Contingency Operations funding is authorized. The committee notes 

that even with $337.2 million in unfunded requirements for WSS, 

the amount only increases to 85 percent. 

The committee is very concerned that failure to fully fund the Air 

Force’s depot maintenance requirements will result in a perpetual 

and persistent backlog of deferred maintenance active, reserve, and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
111 

Air National Guard aircraft. Such a failure will continue to jeopardize and erode aircraft materiel readiness, further reduce the 

service life of the fleet, increase long-term sustainment costs, and 

further increase strategic risk for the Nation. 

Additionally, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force testified before the committee that the Air Force currently faces a ‘‘$2.0 billion 

deficit’’ with respect to deferred aircraft and engines that require 

depot maintenance support. Exacerbating the issue, increased operational tempo in the United States Central Command area of operations has already resulted in added materiel strain on the fleet 

and placed a heavy demand on a wide range of aircraft. 

The committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Air Force and 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force to fully restore and transition WSS 

requirements in fiscal year 2012 base budget request and to develop a more sustainable WSS plan. 

The committee recommends an increase of $337.2 million to the 

Air Force’s Operation and Maintenance accounts, as follows: 

OMAF, $150.0 million for WSS to fund one B–2 programmed depot 

maintenance (PDM) and B–1 high velocity maintenance initiative, 

and dome/sensor repairs to alleviate degradation of space collision 

avoidance systems and ensure Spacelift Range compliance with Department of Defense Information Assurance requirements to be implemented in fiscal year 2011; Operation and Maintenance, Air 

Force Reserve, $99.0 million for WSS to fund two A–10 service life 

extension programs, two A–10 scheduled structural inspections, six 

KC–135 PDMs, and six C–5 engine overhauls for Air Force Reserve 

units; and Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard, $88.2 

million to fund one C–5 PDM, one C–5 major system inspection, 

and five KC–135 PDMs. 

Defense-wide 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $683.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Of this amount, $500.0 million was requested for the Global Train and Equip program to build the capacity of foreign military forces to meet emerging security threats. The 

amount requested for the Global Train and Equip program exceeds 

the program’s current authorized level for fiscal year 2011 of 

$350.0 million under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended 

by section 1206 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) and section 

1206 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

The administration is in the process of conducting a comprehensive interagency review of the security assistance authorities of the 

Department of Defense and the Department of State, including the 

DOD Global Train and Equip program. The committee understands 

that this review should be completed prior to the completion of the 

fiscal year 2012 budget request. The committee welcomes this review and looks forward to any proposals for enhancing U.S. security assistance that result from this process. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
112 

The committee also notes that the request for the DSCA includes $5.0 million for the Stability Operations Fellowship program 

(SOFP). The committee has previously recommended the elimination of funding for the SOFP on the grounds that no authority 

exists for the Department of Defense to conduct this fellowship program. The committee believes that the SOFP goal of educating foreign military personnel in stability operations can be achieved 

through other security assistance programs, including the International Military Education and Training program, and again recommends the elimination of funding for SOFP. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $155.0 million to OMDW for DSCA, consisting of a decrease of $150.0 million 

for the Global Train and Equip program and a decrease of $5.0 million for the SOFP. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request included $39.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). The committee believes the 

military departments should continue to pursue the voluntary 

agreements with other public and private entities as authorized 

under section 2684a of title 10, United States Code, to prevent the 

development or use of property that would be incompatible with 

the mission of an installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements that might otherwise result 

in current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military 

bases. More can and should be done to protect important military 

test and training assets and to preserve the land around these installations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in 

OMDW for REPI and directs that the military departments give 

priority to projects that benefit critical mission training sites that 

have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce encroachment 

through the creation of a compatible use buffer zone. 

Department of Defense support for program development 

and interagency training for rule of law operations 

The budget request included $2.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD). The committee directs that up to $750,000 of this 

amount may be available to support a program for continued strategic planning, program development, and interagency training for 

rule of law operations. 

The committee recognizes the continuing importance of efforts to 

promote the rule of law for stabilization operations and building 

governance capacity in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee notes 

that Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) Number 3000.05, 

dated September 16, 2009, states that stability operations are a 

core U.S. military mission and directs the Department to assist 

other U.S. Government agencies and other entities in the planning, 

preparation, and execution of reconstruction and stabilization efforts, including strengthening governance and the rule of law. 

While commitment to the rule of law is central to the success of 

stability operations, the committee believes insufficient progress 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
113 

has been made by the agencies participating in rule of law operations, specifically the Departments of State, Justice, and Defense, 

to build strategic plans and stand up theater-specific training programs that will prepare military and civilian personnel of the U.S. 

Government to conduct rule of law operations. 

The committee applauds the efforts of the U.S. Army, through 

the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, to make 

progress in this vital and dynamic area. The committee is aware 

that a request for proposal is in process to initiate a program to 

conduct strategic planning and a training program in building rule 

of law capacity. However, it is important at this juncture that the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, building on the Army’s efforts, 

take a leadership role and address the critical need for improved 

planning, training, and coordination among U.S. Government agencies with relevant experience and cultural understanding. 

The committee also directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and of the House of Representatives not later than January 31, 2011, assessing the capabilities and capacities of the Department to conduct rule of law operations and assist other U.S. 

Government agencies in planning and executing rule of law operations, consistent with DODI Number 3000.05. 

Department of Defense Education Activity Operation and 

Maintenance funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 

Defense Education Activity Operations and Maintenance account 

includes the following changes from the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels are discussed in 

greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students .................................. 30.0 

Assistance for schools with military students due to rebasing .......................... 5.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .................................................. 10.0 

Total ................................................................................................................. 45.0 

Unobligated Balances 

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances 

The committee notes that the sustained challenges associated 

with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have created a difficult fiscal management situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense continues to 

under-execute its Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the active and reserve components. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Defense 

had $1.4 billion in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009. The military departments had $1.1 billion in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal years 2005 

through 2009. 

The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 

continues to underfund the full requirement of important maintenance and readiness accounts in its annual request in anticipation 

of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) appropriations. The 

committee notes that whether made available in annual or OCO 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
114 

and supplemental appropriations, the Department and the Services 

must ensure that taxpayer dollars are appropriately managed to 

provide the best possible readiness for the force and avoid the expiration of obligating authority. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.0 million to O&M, Defense-wide. 

Items of Special Interest 

Acoustic intelligence archive programs 

The National Acoustic Intelligence Laboratory at the Office of 

Naval Intelligence (ONI) within the National Maritime Intelligence 

Center (NMIC) provides validated hydro-acoustic signature data to 

intelligence community partners and U.S. Navy acquisition programs in both raw and processed forms. The acoustic intelligence 

(ACINT) archive contains digital and analog media containing 

acoustic intelligence collected by all means. 

The committee understands that the ACINT analog archive may 

be deteriorating with age due to a condition called oxide shedding, 

in which the magnetized coating separates from the tapes, making 

the data un-retrievable. 

Given the importance of the data that may be lost if the Department does not complete transferring this data to digital media, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees containing: 

(1) an assessment of the integrity of the ACINT archive and 

the status of the previously funded digitization program, including; 

(a) the number of analog tapes digitized; 

(b) the number of analog tapes that will not be digitized 

when current funding expires; 

(c) the cost of completing any unfinished transfers to digital media; and 

(d) lessons that may be learned from the Navy’s 

digitization efforts by other intelligence organizations; 

(2) recommendations for the secure digitization of all analog 

tapes maintained by the National Acoustic Intelligence Laboratory at the ONI within the NMIC; 

(3) a description of the procedures to be used for the disposal 

of analog tapes and maintenance of the ACINT archive postdigitization; and 

(4) budget requirements to continue the current digitization 

program, dispose of analog tapes, and maintain the ACINT archive post-digitization. 

Air Force food transformation initiative 

In October 2010, the Air Force plans to launch the first stage of 

a planned initiative to transform its food service operations, including dining facilities, flight kitchen snack bars and catering services. 

Implementation is scheduled to begin at six Air Force bases: Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas; Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington; Travis Air Force 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
115 

Base, California; MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; and Patrick Air 

Force Base, Florida. 

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to 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 6 

months after the enactment of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The GAO review shall address, at a minimum, the following: • Is the concept of a single food service provider to serve appropriated funded dining facilities, non-appropriated funded facilities 

and catering requirements a viable approach to food service operations on Air Force bases? • Are there other models that should be considered to provide 

more effective food service on Air Force bases? • What impact has the initiative had on quality of service, the 

cost of service to airmen, the size of the customer base, the hours 

of service, and the utilization of food service facilities on Air Force 

bases? • What impact has the initiative had on the cost and efficiency 

of Air Force food service operations and the economic viability of 

such operations? • What impact has the initiative had on food service personnel, 

including military personnel, civilian employees of appropriated 

fund entities, civilian employees of non-appropriated fund entities, 

and employees of Ability One? • What mechanism is used to obtain feedback from food service 

users, and what impact has the initiative had on morale of service 

members? 

The committee urges the Air Force to limit the initiative to the 

initial six bases until Congress and the Air Force have had an opportunity to review the GAO report. 

Kirtland Air Force Base jet fuel spill 

Between 1950 and 1999, a 16-inch underground pipe used to offload jet fuel leaked an estimated two to eight million gallons of fuel 

into the soil at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. Investigations are underway on the exact size and location of the plume. 

However, the committee has been informed that this fuel has migrated over 400 feet downward to the aquifer used by the city of 

Albuquerque for its drinking water. One recent estimate puts the 

size of the fuel plume at over 1/3 of a mile in length and over a 

foot in height at its maximum point, with its leading edge within 

3,700 feet of the first of several drinking wells used by the city of 

Albuquerque. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to 

the congressional defense committees on the Kirtland jet fuel spill 

by no later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. The report should provide the Department’s assessment of the 

scope of the problem and the steps that the Department has taken 

or plans to take to address the problem. 

The committee expects the Department of the Air Force and the 

other military departments to request sufficient funds to cover high 

priority (level one) remediation requirements and to prioritize these 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
116 

requirements on the basis of risk factors in accordance with established protocols. 

Littoral combat ship report 

The committee has concluded that the projected ship decommissioning and construction schedule presented in the Navy’s program 

described in its ‘‘Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan 

for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011’’ could have a negative effect on some of the Nation’s Navy bases. This would arise because of a gap that will occur as a result of small surface combatants being retired years before Littoral Combat Ship replacements 

will arrive. 

The Navy’s 2010 document ‘‘Report on Strategic Plan for Homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship’’ provided the committee with the 

Navy’s notional strategic plan for stationing the Littoral Combat 

Ship through fiscal year 2020. In order to fully understand the effects of the Navy’s current decommissioning and shipbuilding 

timeline, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees that would provide the timeline and detailed homeport locations for the Littoral 

Combat Ships that will be delivered through 2020. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the reports at the time 

the President submits his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal to Congress. 

As the Navy finalizes its plans, the committee encourages the 

Navy to expedite delivery of the Littoral Combat Ship to those 

Navy bases that need replacement ships to mitigate capability gaps 

that will result from the retirement of smaller surface combatants. 

Report and timeline for the Secretary of the Navy’s energy 

goals 

The committee notes that the five goals announced by the Secretary of the Navy in October 2009 with respect to renewable energy are ambitious, commendable, and essential to restoring Navy 

readiness. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy has 

yet to budget, plan, and articulate a comprehensive strategy with 

milestones and metrics, on how the Navy will actually accomplish 

those five energy goals. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than February 1, 2011. The report should include cost estimates, 

incremental steps, and measurable timelines upon which the five 

goals set forth by the Secretary of the Navy will be met. 

Requirements for standard ground combat camouflage uniforms 

Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) established 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 as long as such uniforms, to the 

maximum extent possible, provide members of every military service an equivalent level of performance, functionality, and protection 

commensurate with their respective assigned combat missions; 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
117 

minimize risk to the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine 

operating in the joint battlespace; and provide interoperability with 

other components of individual war fighter systems, including body 

armor and other individual protective systems. 

Section 352 also required the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to review performance, interoperability, costs and logistics, 

and patents or other proprietary elements involved in the services’ 

ground combat camouflage uniforms. In April 2010, the GAO reported that the services have continued to develop unique ground 

combat uniforms. 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 tactical gear. 

While the GAO indicated that forums are available for the sharing of technology, the committee believes these forums for sharing 

could be better used. In particular, Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4140.63, dated August 5, 2008, established the Joint 

Clothing and Textiles Governance Board and assigned the Director, 

Defense Logistics Agency, as chair of the Board. The Board is responsible to ‘‘ensure collaboration and DOD-wide integration of 

clothing and textile activities’’. However, it appears that such coordination and integration has failed to occur in practice. 

Section 352(d) requires the secretaries of the military departments to establish joint criteria for future ground combat uniforms 

not later than 270 days after receiving the GAO report. The joint 

criteria are required to take into account the GAO findings and recommendations and ensure that new technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design may be 

shared between the military services and are not precluded from 

being adapted for use by any military service due to military service-unique proprietary arrangements. The committee is concerned 

that the military services continue to develop their own unique 

ground combat uniforms without regard to this requirement. 

The committee is particularly concerned by a December 2009 policy memorandum issued by the Chief of Naval Operations, which 

permits only certain categories of Navy personnel to wear advanced 

digital camouflage on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

committee believes that the most advanced technologies and materials should be made available to all military personnel serving in 

the theater of operations. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by no later than August 1, 2010, on the steps that the Department has taken and 

plans to take to implement the requirements of section 352(d) and 

ensure that new technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design may be shared between 

the services, and are not prevented from being adapted for use by 

any single service due to service-unique proprietary arrangements. 

The report should specifically address the steps that have been 

taken or will be taken by the secretaries of the military departments, in conjunction with the Joint Staff and combatant commands, to update their ground combat uniform standards and develop operational performance criteria for camouflage as a basis to 

evaluate its effectiveness specific to the various combat environVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
118 

ments for the purpose of increasing the interoperability of the 

ground combat forces; eliminating any unique features that could 

pose a tactical risk in a theater of operations; maximizing conformance with personal protective equipment and body armor; and optimizing coloration and pattern for the ground combat uniform for 

the terrain, climate, and conditions in which the forces may be operating. 

The GAO report noted that the services have used the Army 

Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

during development of their ground combat uniforms to test the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and in some cases camouflage 

effectiveness of ground combat uniforms and protective equipment. 

Given this emerging expertise, the committee encourages the services to use the Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and 

Engineering Center to guide their development of camouflage effectiveness criteria and testing. 

The committee strongly encourages the secretaries of the military departments to explore additional methods for sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop their ground 

combat uniforms. The committee is concerned that the services 

may not be sharing these technologies early and often enough in 

the process. While the GAO found some examples of uniform technology shared across the services, the committee emphasizes the 

importance of sharing new technologies, advanced materials, and 

other advances in ground combat uniform design between the military services. 

Reserve component pre-deployment equipment fielding and 

training 

The committee is aware that reserve component and National 

Guard units face training equipment challenges when they are mobilized and deployed in support of contingency operations around 

the world. Reserve and National Guard units do not always train 

with the equipment they will use in theater until they are mobilized and arrive at their pre-deployment training stations. 

The committee understands that the Rapid Fielding Initiative 

(RFI) was designed to create a rapid, centralized fielding system to 

ensure that the newest equipment would be available to units and 

individuals for training prior to deployment. In June 2008, the Department of the Army established a pilot program accelerating the 

RFI fielding schedule from the post-mobilization to the pre-mobilization phase of deployment training for specific reserve component 

and National Guard units deploying in fiscal year 2010. The committee understands that this pilot program is ongoing and that the 

final data will be collected, analyzed, and a report completed sometime in early 2011. 

The committee is concerned that despite the efforts of the RFI 

pilot, current training equipment availability and fielding policy 

does not always ensure that reserve and National Guard troops 

and units have sufficient time to train with new equipment prior 

to their deployment. The committee urges the Department of Defense to make additional efforts to provide the individual and unit 

equipment that reserve and National Guard units will use while 

deployed in a manner that allows for the most effective and effiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
119 

cient training. Accordingly, the committee directs the Chief of Staff 

of the Army to submit to the congressional defense committees, not 

later than January 31, 2011, the results of the RFI pilot study, including his assessment of equipping issues related to reserve and 

National Guard pre-mobilization and pre-deployment training, and 

the Army’s plans for changes or improvements to ensure that their 

reserve component forces have the equipment they need for efficient and effective training prior to deployment. 

Review of Army and Marine Corps Readiness Reporting 

The committee is disappointed that implementation of the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) began in 2001 and has 

yet to fully replace the Global Status of Resources and Training 

Status. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office found 

in a September 2009 report that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

‘‘needs to strengthen management and oversight of DRRS’’. Accurate readiness reporting statistics as well as capabilities are essential to the DOD being able to execute our National Military Strategy. 

The committee notes that in recent years, the Services have directed their units to make several changes in the way they report 

unit readiness. Specifically, the Army has updated its readiness reporting policy and has directed its units to provide additional information concerning the units’ abilities to perform directed missions 

as well as the units’ core mission. The Army reports this information in its readiness reporting system that feeds information into 

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. 

The committee wishes to better understand the extent to which 

the changes will help the services to more accurately capture data, 

interpret, and report on the readiness of their forces. Accordingly, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General to review Army and 

Marine Corps readiness reporting systems. 

This review should assess any changes that the Services have 

made to their approach to reporting readiness, identify the steps 

that units have taken to implement the directed readiness reporting changes, including the extent to which the Services have 

aligned these changes with existing strategies for training and deploying forces, such as the Army’s force generation cycle, and assess the impact of these changes on the content of readiness information available to decisionmakers within the Department and 

Congress. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit this review no later than April 15, 2011 to the congressional defense committees. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(121) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2010 authorization 2011 

request 

2011 recommendation 

Army ...................................................................................................... 562,400 569,400 569,400 

Navy ...................................................................................................... 328,800 328,700 328,700 

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 202,100 202,100 202,100 

Air Force ................................................................................................ 331,700 332,200 332,200 

The committee has supported the growth in the Army and the 

Marine Corps over the past 4 years, and in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), Congress increased the authorized active-duty end strengths of all the 

services, authorizing over 55,000 more active-duty service members 

across all services. Section 403 of that Act authorized the Secretary 

of Defense to increase the Army’s active-duty end strength to 

592,400 in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 if he determined it necessary 

to support operational requirements or organizational restructuring. 

Last year, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Army 

would be increasing its active-duty end strength by 22,000 in order 

to ensure that deploying units would be properly manned. The Department submitted a budget amendment to achieve 15,000 of that 

growth during fiscal year 2010. The committee supported the Secretary and authorized active-duty Army end strength of 562,400 

rather than the 547,400 originally proposed by the Department, 

with the understanding that the additional 7,000 would be requested in fiscal year 2011. The committee supports the 2011 request of 569,400, and expects the Army to use all available authorized end strength, for which it has budgeted in 2011, to increase 

dwell time for individual soldiers and units, improve readiness, and 

ensure that deploying units are sufficiently manned. 

The committee supports the administration’s request and recommends active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2011 for the 

Army of 569,400, the Marine Corps of 202,100, the Navy of 

328,700, and the Air Force of 332,200. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown below: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
122 

Fiscal year 

2010 

authorization 

2011 

request 

2011 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ................................... 358,200 358,200 358,200 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................. 205,000 205,000 205,000 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................. 65,500 65,500 65,500 

The Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 

The Air National Guard of the United States ....................................... 106,700 106,700 106,700 

The Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 69,500 71,200 71,200 

The Coast Guard Reserve ..................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

Reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2011, as shown 

below: 

Fiscal year 

2010 

authorization 

2011 

request 

2011 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ................................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................. 10,818 10,688 10,688 

The Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 

The Air National Guard of the United States ....................................... 14,555 14,584 14,584 

The Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 2,896 2,992 2,992 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize end 

strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal year 2011, 

as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2010 authorization 2011 

request 

2011 recommendation 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................. 8,395 8,395 8,395 

The Army National Guard of the United States ................................... 27,210 27,210 27,210 

The Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 10,417 10,720 10,720 

The Air National Guard of the United States ....................................... 22,313 22,394 22,394 

Fiscal year 2011 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2011, as 

shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2010 

authorization 

2011 

request 

2011 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ................................... 1,600 2,520 1,600 

The Air National Guard of the United States ....................................... 350 350 350 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................. 595 595 595 

The Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 90 90 90 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
123 

The committee recommends maintaining Army National Guard 

non-dual status end strength at 1,600, consistent with prior years, 

920 less than the administration’s request. The committee notes 

that under a Presidential waiver of end strength limitations, the 

Army National Guard currently employs over 3,000 non-dual status 

technicians, many of whom serve at State headquarters. The committee is concerned that the requested strength may be too high 

once the wars end, particularly considering that non-dual status 

technicians are federal employees and cannot be easily separated. 

The committee considers the end strength limitations of this section appropriate to meet permanent peacetime requirements. Additionally, the temporary hiring authority for non-dual status technicians found elsewhere in this Act should alleviate the pressures 

created by the operations tempo of the dual status technician population. Finally, the committee is still waiting for two reports from 

the Department of Defense on the full-time support requirements 

of the reserve components generally, and the specific requirements 

for non-dual status technicians. 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2011, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2010 

authorization 

2011 

request 

2011 

recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ................................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 

The Army Reserve ................................................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 

The Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 

The Air National Guard of the United States ....................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 

The Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 

Subtitle C—Authorizations of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funds to be appropriated for military personnel accounts of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011. 

Subtitle D—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$71.2 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(125) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Modification of promotion board procedures for joint qualified officers and officers with joint staff experience (sec. 

501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 612 of title 10, United States Code, to require promotion selection boards considering officers who are serving on, or have served 

on, the Joint Staff, or who are joint qualified officers, to include as 

a member of the board at least one joint qualified officer designated 

by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to waive this requirement for promotion selection boards considering medical officers, dental officers, veterinary 

officers, medical service officers, nurses, biomedical science officers, 

chaplains, judge advocates, and officers in the science and technology field for which joint requirements do not exist. The provision 

would also amend sections 615 and 618 of title 10, United States 

Code, to clarify that these statutes regarding information furnished 

to selection boards and action on reports of selection boards are applicable to boards that consider officers who are serving on, or have 

served on, the Joint Staff or are joint qualified officers. 

Nondisclosure of information from discussions, deliberations, notes, and records of special selection boards (sec. 

502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 613, 628 and 14104 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 

that the nondisclosure provisions applicable to promotion selection 

boards for officers on the active-duty list and on the reserve activestatus list are also applicable to promotion selection boards for 

warrant officers and for special selection boards. 

Administrative removal of officers from promotion list (sec. 

503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 629 and 14310 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 

administrative removal of an officer’s name from a promotion list, 

under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, if the officer was recommended for promotion but was discharged, dropped 

from the rolls, or transferred to a retired status before being promoted. 

Technical revisions to definition of ‘‘joint matters’’ for purposes of joint officer management (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 668(a) of title 10, United States Code, to change the definition 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
126 

of joint matters to matters related to the achievement of unified action by integrated military forces and to clarify that participation 

in any one of several enumerated joint activities meets the requirement. The provision defines integrated military forces as forces 

that involve participants from more than one of the military departments or a military department and (1) other departments or 

agencies of the United States, (2) the military forces or agencies of 

other countries, or (3) non-governmental persons or entities. 

Modification of authority for officers selected for appointment to general and flag officer grades to wear insignia 

of higher grade before appointment (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 45 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize officers selected 

for appointment to grades of lieutenant general, vice admiral, general, or admiral, whose nomination has been confirmed by the Senate, to wear the insignia for that higher grade for a period of up 

to 14 days before assuming the duties of the position for which the 

higher grade is authorized. The provision would also amend section 

777 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the required 30 day 

waiting period following congressional notification before officers 

below the grades of major general or rear admiral are authorized 

to wear the insignia of the next higher grade. 

Temporary authority to reduce minimum length of commissioned service required for voluntary retirement as an 

officer (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3911, 6323, and 8911 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the service secretaries to approve the voluntary retirement 

of officers who have completed 20 years of service, 8 of which are 

active service as a commissioned officer. This temporary authority 

would begin on the date of enactment of this Act and end on September 30, 2013. 

Age for appointment and mandatory retirement for health 

professions officers (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 532 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize appointment 

of individuals with certain medical skills who will not be able to 

complete 20 years of active commissioned service before age 62 as 

regular and reserve commissioned officers. The provision also 

amends section 1251 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

the service secretary to defer until age 68 the mandatory retirement of certain health professions officers. 

Authority for permanent professors at the United States Air 

Force Academy to hold command positions (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9334(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to allow a permanent professor at the 

United States Air Force Academy on an operational tour or sabbatical duty away from the Academy to exercise command of units 

to which they are assigned. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
127 

Authority for appointment of warrant officers in the grade 

of W–1 by commission and standardization of warrant 

officer appointing authority (sec. 509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 571 and 12241 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

appointments of warrant officers, W–1, in both the regular and reserve components, to be made by warrant or commission. 

Continuation of warrant officers on active duty to complete 

disciplinary action (sec. 510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 33A of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of the military department concerned to delay the mandatory separation or retirement of a warrant officer against whom action has 

been commenced with a view to trying the warrant officer by courtmartial. 

Authority to credit military graduates of the National Defense Intelligence College with completion of joint professional military education Phase I (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2154 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize graduates of 

the National Defense Intelligence College to receive credit for completion of joint professional military education Phase I. 

Expansion of authority relating to phase II of three-phase 

approach to joint professional military education (sec. 

512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2154 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize adjunct faculty of the Armed Forces Staff College to teach the joint professional military education Phase II course of instruction at locations 

other than the Joint Forces Staff College primary campus in Norfolk, Virginia. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Repeal of requirement for new oath when officer transfers 

from active-duty list to reserve active-status list (sec. 

521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12201 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that an officer who transfers from the active component to 

the reserve component execute a new oath of office. 

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be 

considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a service 

secretary to provide that a Reserve officer who is in an active status but in a duty status in which the officer earns retirement 

points only for membership in a reserve component of an armed 

force shall not be considered for selection for promotion while remaining on the reserve active-status list. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
128 

Authority for assignment of Air Force Reserve military technicians (dual status) to positions outside Air Force Reserve unit program (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize assignment 

of Air Force Reserve technicians (dual status) outside of the Air 

Force Reserve unit program. 

Authority for temporary employment of non-dual status 

technicians to fill vacancies caused by mobilization of 

military technicians (dual status) (sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10217 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the reserve 

components to hire additional non-dual status technicians to fill vacancies created by mobilized dual status technicians for up to two 

years, or for the length of the mobilization, whichever is shorter. 

Direct appointment of graduates of the United States Merchant Marine Academy into the National Guard (sec. 

525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 305 of title 32, United States Code, to authorize federal recognition of graduates of the United States Merchant Marine Academy as commissioned officers of the National Guard. 

Subtitle C—Education and Training 

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services University 

of the Health Sciences and students participating in the armed 

forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 

Programs who have prior commissioned service to serve, while on 

active duty, in pay grade O–1, or in pay grade O–2 if they meet 

specified promotion criteria prescribed by the service secretary. The 

provision would also amend section 2004a of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide that an officer detailed as a student at a medical 

school would serve on active duty in the same grade with the same 

entitlement to pay as specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Authority to waive maximum age limitation on admission to 

the service academies for certain enlisted members who 

served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

service secretaries to waive the maximum age limitations for admission to the military service academies in sections 4346, 6958, 

and 9346 of title 10, United States Code, for up to 5 enlisted members of the armed forces per year who (1) become 23 years of age 

while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 

Freedom or were candidates for admission and were prevented 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
129 

from entering the academy before July 1 of the year in which the 

members became 23 years of age because of service in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, (2) possess an exceptional overall record that sets them apart from other candidates 

for admission to the academy, and (3) have not passed their twenty-sixth birthday on July 1 of the year in which the members enter 

the academy. 

Active duty obligation for military academy graduates who 

participate in the Armed Forces Health Professions 

Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 4348, 6959, and 9348 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that graduates of service academies who participate in the 

Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program (HPSP) must serve their academy service obligation 

on active duty after graduating from HPSP. 

Participation of Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program recipients in active duty health profession loan repayment program 

(sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2173 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize loan repayment for students who incurred student loans pursuing an appropriate degree prior to enrolling in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program. 

Increase in number of private sector civilians authorized 

for admission to the National Defense University (sec. 

535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2167(a) of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 20 to 

35 the number of eligible private sector civilians who work in organizations relevant to national security who are authorized to receive instruction at the National Defense University. 

Modification of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

minimum unit strength (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a minimum 

enrollment of 75 for Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps units 

at institutions where total student enrollment does not exceed 

1,000, and a minimum enrollment of 100 at institutions where total 

student enrollment exceeds 1,000. 

Increase in maximum age for prospective Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps financial assistance recipients (sec. 537) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2107 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the maximum 

age for eligibility to receive a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC) scholarship from age 31 to age 35 in the calendar year in 

which an individual is eligible for appointment as an ensign in the 

Navy or as a second lieutenant in the Army, Air Force, or Marine 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
130 

Corps. The provision would also amend section 2107a of title 10, 

United States Code, to increase the maximum age for eligibility to 

receive an ROTC scholarship from age 31 to age 35 in the calendar 

year in which a specially selected member of the Army Reserve or 

Army National Guard is eligible for appointment as a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve or Army National Guard. 

Modification of education loan repayment programs (sec. 

538) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2171 and 16301 of title 10, United States Code, to subject the 

loan repayment programs under those sections to the repayment 

provisions of section 303a(e) of title 37, United States Code, and to 

authorize the service secretaries to pay a lump sum payment for 

the balance of any loans the services agreed to pay under a written 

agreement existing at the time of the service member’s death. 

Enhancements of Department of Defense undergraduate 

nurse training program (sec. 539) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2016 of title 10, United States Code, to make technical and 

clarifying changes to the Department of Defense undergraduate 

nurse training program. The provision would also change the date 

for initiation of a pilot program to increase the number of nurses 

serving in the armed forces from no later than July 1, 2011, to no 

later than August 31, 2012. 

Authority for service commitment of reservists who accept 

fellowships, scholarships, or grants to be performed in 

the Selected Reserve (sec. 540) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2603(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize members 

of the Selected Reserve to fulfill a service obligation incurred for 

acceptance of a fellowship, scholarship, or grant by serving on active duty for a period of at least three times the length of the period of the education or training, or in the Selected Reserve for a 

period of at least five times the length of the period of the education or training. 

Health professions scholarship and financial assistance program for civilians (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense to establish a health professions scholarship and financial assistance program for eligible civilians. The 

program would provide financial assistance for civilians to pursue 

a course of study leading to a degree related to the health professions, with a corresponding obligation of service as a Department 

of Defense or military department civilian employee. 

The committee commends the Department for its dedication to 

helping to increase the number of health professionals available to 

provide care for service members and their families, and hopes this 

financial assistance program serves to enhance the medical capabilities of the Department and the services. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
131 

Annual report on Department of Defense graduate medical 

education programs (sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report annually on the status of graduate 

medical education programs of the Department of Defense. The 

committee recognizes that such programs are essential to ensuring 

the quality and vitality of the military health care system, and 

training of uniformed providers essential to medical readiness. The 

provision is intended to ensure visibility for the Department and 

Congress on the status of training programs and enable actions to 

mitigate challenges faced by such programs. 

Subtitle D—Defense Dependents’ Education 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the armed 

forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance 

program to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. 

The committee also recommends authorization of $5.0 million in 

OMDW for assistance to local educational agencies with significant 

changes in enrollment of military and civilian school-aged dependent children due to base closures, force structure changes, or force 

relocations. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of Department of 

Defense assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe disabilities. 

Authority to expand eligibility for enrollment in Department of Defense elementary and secondary schools to 

certain additional categories of dependents (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the enrollment in Department of Defense elementary and secondary schools 

of dependents of wounded, ill, or injured service members who reside in temporary housing, and of service members who reside in 

temporary housing due to an ongoing base housing privatization 

project, regardless of whether the temporary housing is on federal 

property. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
132 

Subtitle E—Leave and Related Matters 

Leave of members of the reserve components of the armed 

forces (sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize reserve component members to carry over leave accumulated during periods of 

active service without regard to separation or release from active 

service, subject to the leave carryover limits contained elsewhere in 

that section. Under current law, service members must use or sell 

earned leave prior to separation or release from their active service. The provision would also amend section 501 of title 37, United 

States Code, to allow reserve component members to sell leave accumulated and carried over under this authority in the event they 

separate or retire from their reserve component. 

Non-chargeable rest and recuperation absence for certain 

members undergoing extended deployment to a combat 

zone (sec. 557) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

service secretaries, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 

Defense, to provide rest and recuperation absence of up to 15 days, 

including round-trip travel at government expense, to certain service members entitled to hardship duty pay while serving in a combat zone designated by the President. 

Subtitle F—Military Justice Matters 

Reform of offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and 

other sexual misconduct under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to separate Article 120, UCMJ, 

into three separate articles of the UCMJ: Article 120, UCMJ, would 

apply to the offenses of rape and sexual assault of any person; Article 120b, UCMJ, would apply to sexual offenses against children 

under the age of 16 years; and Article 120c, UCMJ, would apply 

to other non-consensual sexual misconduct offenses. Article 120a, 

UCMJ, which applies to the offense of stalking, would not be 

changed. The changes in law included in this provision were recommended by the Joint Services Committee on Military Justice 

and the Secretary of Defense to address deficiencies in existing law 

that have been identified by military courts and which were addressed in the report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault 

in the Military (December 2009). 

Enhanced authority to punish contempt in military justice 

proceedings (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 848 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the maximum 

fine for contempt in military justice proceedings from $100 to 

$1,000. The provision also adds willful disobedience of a lawful 

writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of a military judge, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
133 

court of inquiry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces, a military Court of Criminal Appeals, a provost court, or 

military commission as a basis for punishment for contempt. 

Authority to compel production of documentary evidence 

prior to trial in military justice cases (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 847 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize subpoenas 

duces tecum to compel production of documentary evidence prior to 

trial by court-martial, consistent with other federal criminal court 

practice. 

Subtitle G—Awards and Decorations 

Cold War Service Medal (sec. 566) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to authorize the issuance of a Cold War Service Medal by the service secretaries. 

Authority for award of Bronze Star medal to members of 

military forces of friendly foreign nations (sec. 567) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1133 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the award 

of the Bronze Star to members of military forces of friendly foreign 

nations for actions occurring in geographic areas in which members 

of the United States military are authorized to receive imminent 

danger pay. 

Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-Service Cross to Shinyei Matayoshi for acts of valor during 

World War II (sec. 568) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished-Service Cross to 

Shinyei Matayoshi for acts of valor in World War II. 

Authorization and request for award of Distinguished-Service Cross to Jay C. Copley for acts of valor during the 

Vietnam War (sec. 569) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished-Service Cross to 

former Captain Jay C. Copley for acts of valor during the Vietnam 

War. 

Subtitle H—Wounded Warrior Matters 

Disposition of members found to be fit for duty who are not 

suitable for deployment or worldwide assignment for 

medical reasons (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit involuntary administrative separation of a service member who has been determined by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to be fit for duty 

based on a subsequent administrative determination that the member is unsuitable for deployment or worldwide assignment based on 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
134 

the same medical condition that was considered by the PEB. The 

service member could be retired or separated for physical disability 

if a reevaluation by the PEB results in a determination that the 

member is unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, 

rank, or rating. 

The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense 

has not resolved the differing approaches of the services to this 

problem despite numerous complaints, inquiries, and expressions of 

concern about the inequitable treatment of military personnel with 

medical conditions. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense 

to issue uniform guidance to the services about how to proceed in 

the disposition of currently serving service members who fall into 

this category. 

Authority to expedite background investigations for hiring 

of wounded warriors and spouses by the Department of 

Defense and defense contractors (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1564 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize expedited 

background investigations required for the granting of security 

clearances for service members expected to be medically retired or 

separated, their spouses, and surviving spouses of service members 

who die from a wound, injuries, or illness incurred or aggravated 

in the line of duty, to assist these individuals in obtaining employment with the Department of Defense or a Department of Defense 

contractor. 

Subtitle I—Military Family Readiness Matters 

Additional members of Department of Defense Military 

Family Readiness Council (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1781a of title 10, United States Code, to require the addition 

of two members to the Department of Defense Military Family 

Readiness Council. One representative would be the spouse of an 

officer serving in the grade of general or admiral, and the other 

would be the Director of the Office of Community Support for Military Families With Special Needs. 

The committee believes that the Council would greatly benefit 

from the inclusion of a representative who can advocate for the 

needs of military families with special needs dependents. The committee is concerned that funds have not been reprogrammed to 

support significant improvements in programs for military families 

with special needs, as required by section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

The committee expects that when the plan to implement these statutory requirements is complete, funding will be aligned within 

available defense-wide and military department resources to fully 

meet requirements for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, and that these 

programs will be fully funded in future years. 

The committee also believes that public transparency of Council 

actions should be increased, and encourages the Council to establish a website. This website should serve to keep military families 

informed about upcoming Council meetings and to post the outVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
135 

comes of prior meetings, and to increase transparency of Council 

activities and reports. The committee understands that certain information is already available to the public due to Federal Advisory 

Committee Act requirements, but believes military families could 

be better served by the establishment of a centrally located, easy 

to find and navigate Council website. 

Enhancement of community support for military families 

with special needs (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make several 

modifications to requirements for the Office of Community Support 

for Military Families With Special Needs. The provision would: 

(1) require that the office conduct periodic reviews of best 

practices in the provision of medical and educational services 

for children with special needs; 

(2) authorize the secretaries of the military departments to 

establish or support centers to provide medical and educational 

services for military children with special needs; and 

(3) require the formation of an advisory panel comprised of 

military family members to provide advice to the Director of 

the office on services and support for military children with 

special needs. 

Pilot program on scholarships for military dependent children with special education needs (sec. 583) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, beginning in the 

2011–2012 school year, to assess the feasibility and advisability of 

awarding scholarships to military children with special education 

needs for the purpose of ensuring access to appropriate education 

and related services based on an individualized education program. 

The program would identify and assess obstacles faced by military 

families in obtaining a free and appropriate public education for 

their eligible children. The amount of the scholarship would be the 

lesser of the cost of school tuition and fees or $7,500. The pilot 

would terminate in September 2016. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to consult with the Secretary of Education in the development of options 

and actions to enhance access to benefits available to military dependent children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (Public Law 108–446). 

Reports on child development centers and financial assistance for child care for members of the armed forces 

(sec. 584) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than 6 months 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, on Department of Defense child development centers and financial assistance provided by the Department for off-installation 

child care. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
136 

Subtitle J—Other Matters 

Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in 

the armed forces (sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

654 of title 10, United States Code, to be effective 60 days after the 

date on which the Secretary of Defense has received the report of 

the Department of Defense’s comprehensive review of the implementation of a repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (comprehensive review), 

and the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that they have considered the report and proposed plan of action of the comprehensive 

review, that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary 

policies and regulations to implement the discretion provided by 

the repeal of section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and that 

the implementation of policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the repeal is consistent with the standards of 

military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for the armed forces. 

The committee intends to hold hearings upon receipt of the findings of the comprehensive review to ensure that the findings of the 

review and the recommended policy revisions are consistent with 

the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for the armed forces. 

Recruitment and enlistment of charter school graduates in 

the armed forces (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe a policy by June 1, 2011, on the 

recruitment and enlistment in the armed forces of graduates of 

charter schools. 

The committee is concerned that the recruiting commands of the 

armed forces do not have adequate guidance about how to categorize under the Department’s three-tier system graduates of the 

expanding number and types of charter schools in the United 

States. U.S. News and World Report rated 8 charter schools as 

among the top 25 high schools in America in 2009. The committee 

believes that the Department must do more to clarify its guidance 

to ensure that recruiters consider graduates of such charter schools 

in the appropriate tier category. 

The committee also believes that a process should be established 

that will enable charter schools and their advocates to present 

their education credentials in a manner that will ensure uniform, 

accurate designation as Tier 1 schools when appropriate. 

Updated terminology for the Army Medical Service Corps 

(sec. 593) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3068(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to reflect the current 

structure of the Army Medical Service Corps by renaming the 

Pharmacy, Supply, and Administration Section as the Administrative Health Services Section; the Sanitary Engineering Section as 

the Preventive Medicine Sciences Section; and the Optometry Section as the Clinical Health Sciences Section. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
137 

Items of Special Interest 

Access to appropriate facilities, services, and support for 

military families with dependent children with special 

needs 

The committee seeks information to determine if the complex 

needs of military dependent children with special needs are being 

met by Department of Defense (DOD) child care and educational 

programs in accordance with the following applicable federal laws: 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101–336), the Rehabilitation Act of l973 (Public Law 93–112), and the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 94–142). Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report not 

later than February 1, 2011, on the following: 

(1) the current program for inspection of DOD child development centers, DOD funded child care programs, and DOD 

schools to ensure compliance with applicable law prohibiting 

discrimination on the basis of disability and access to and receipt of a free and appropriate public education through special 

education and related services; 

(2) whether or not any non-DOD entity is involved in such 

inspections, and if not, the feasibility of including non-DOD organizations in such inspections; 

(3) the results of the inspections conducted during calendar 

years 2008, 2009, and 2010; 

(4) a summary of the challenges faced by military families 

with dependent children with special needs in obtaining needed child care or special education and related services; 

(5) resources available to military families with dependent 

children with special needs who require child care or special 

education and related services provided by DOD; 

(6) services available to military dependent children with 

special needs who attend DOD child care or educational facilities, by location; 

(7) outreach programs to inform military families with dependent children with special needs of their rights in the event 

that child care or special education and related services are denied by a particular DOD or non-DOD facility; 

(8) description of litigation or outstanding cases involving denial of child care or special education and related services involving a military dependent child with special needs; 

(9) current DOD policy regarding administration of medications in DOD child development centers and schools; 

(10) a description of the challenges faced by the Department 

in meeting child care and educational needs of military dependent children with special needs, especially those with autism, epilepsy, complex medical needs, or a low incidence disability; and 

(11) a plan to enhance inspection of DOD child care and special education and related services in accordance with applicable federal law. 

The committee directs DOD to consult with the Department of 

Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 

military family representatives in preparing the report and plan. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
138 

The committee further directs the United States Government Accountability Office to review DOD’s report and plan, and to submit 

a report to the committee not later than May 1, 2012, on that review and the availability of services for military dependent children 

with special needs, including the DOD inspection process as it pertains to children with special needs and challenges faced by these 

children’s families. 

Access to the operational reserve 

Effective access to the reserve component as an operational force 

is essential to reducing the burden on all forces and making 

progress on the roadmap to the best use of the reserve components 

to achieve national security objectives provided by the findings and 

recommendations of the Commission on the National Guard and 

Reserves. 

The committee believes that the existing authorities for involuntary mobilization of the reserve components under section 12302 

and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, may not offer the necessary flexibility to service planners to facilitate the effective use 

of the operational reserve. In order to provide trained and ready reserve units and personnel to respond rapidly to contingencies, participate in essential rotational missions, and comply with applicable dwell time goals, additional legal authority to order members 

of the reserve component into federal military service may be required. 

In recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Reserve Affairs stated that ‘‘the process by which roles 

and missions are assigned to the Reserve and Guard should be 

characterized by a belief that these forces can, and frequently 

should be, the first choice for recurring and predictable missions 

within their capabilities, because they are fully accessible. In this 

context, predictability encourages anticipatory planning—thinking 

ahead, not just in terms of the type of mission, but the timing and 

duration of the mission as well. Predictable missions create lead 

time for proper planning and training. That kind of anticipatory 

thinking can’t be done when the Reserve components are used as 

the ‘last option’.’’ 

Additionally, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves found that ‘‘individual volunteerism, while admirable, is not 

a sustainable means to provide access to the reserve component 

units that the services require.’’ The committee concurs and recommends that the Secretary of Defense review current mobilization 

authorities and submit legislative proposals for any additional authority needed to facilitate the involuntary activation of specified 

numbers of Selected Reserve personnel or units for limited periods 

of time to support operational requirements. 

Comptroller General review of educational fellowships and 

training-with-industry programs 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review legislative and educational fellowships and training-with-industry programs of the Department of Defense and the 

military services to assess the costs to the Government, including 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
139 

costs charged to the Government by participating institutions, and 

the effectiveness of the programs in the education and career progression of participating service members. The Comptroller General 

shall include in the review the following: (1) an assessment of 

whether the Department’s and services’ implementation of the programs comply with applicable law and policy; (2) a description of 

the number of fellows assigned by project and the work-study performed by participating service members during their fellowships; 

(3) an analysis of the issues involved with assigning service members to organizations with ideological or political agendas or to corporations with a financial interest in Department of Defense or 

military service contracts, including potential conflicts of interest, 

and the guidance given to service members in these assignments; 

(4) whether the follow-on assignments given to participants, including legislative fellows assigned to congressional staff, make use of 

skills and knowledge obtained during the fellowships in accordance 

with departmental regulations; and (5) whether the fellowships 

provide any benefit to the Government. 

The Comptroller General shall report to the congressional defense committees by May 1, 2011, on the results of this review. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(141) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL 

BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Extension of authority for increase in basic allowance for 

housing for areas subject to major disaster or installations experiencing sudden increase in personnel (sec. 

601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to 

pay additional basic allowance for housing in areas impacted by a 

major disaster or at installations experiencing a sudden increase in 

personnel. 

Repeal of mandatory high-deployment allowance (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the authority and requirement to pay the high-deployment allowance 

(HDA) under section 436 of title 37, United States Code. 

The HDA was enacted prior to the attacks of September 11, 

2001, at a time when the services were responding inadequately to 

the demands being placed on a small number of key warfighters, 

i.e., the so-called ‘‘high demand, low density’’ personnel. While the 

services’ reliance on too few highly skilled military occupational 

specialties to deploy too frequently in time of war continues, the 

committee believes that the greatly enhanced framework of pays 

and allowances since 2001 and the Department of Defense’s efforts 

to measure and improve dwell time for deployed service members 

provides sufficient basis to repeal the HDA authority. 

The committee believes, however, that the management of deployments of members required under section 991 of title 10, 

United States Code, is still essential, and that the need still exists 

for the Department to track deployment days, measure dwell time 

on an individual basis, and manage the operations tempo of its personnel in a manner that provides clarity to the Department, the 

services, and Congress concerning the operational demands placed 

on individual service members. In this regard the committee urges 

the Secretary of Defense to use the authority under section 991 

(b)(4) to define ‘‘deployment’’ to conform with current dwell time 

goals 

Ineligibility of certain Federal Government employees for 

income replacement payments (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 910 of title 37, United States Code, to clarify that civilian employees of the Federal Government may not receive income differential payments concurrently under that section and section 

5538 of title 5, United States Code. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
142 

Report on costs incurred by members undergoing permanent change of duty station in excess of allowances (sec. 

604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the 

expenses incurred by members of the armed forces undergoing a 

permanent change of station move. The report would include a description of the number of service members who transport a second 

personally owned vehicle to overseas foreign and non-foreign locations, the expenses they typically incur in doing so, and an assessment of the availability of affordable vehicles at overseas foreign 

and non-foreign areas, including sales between service members. 

Report on basic allowance for housing for personnel assigned to sea duty (sec. 605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2011, a report assessing the standards used to determine eligibility for and level of compensation of 

basic allowance for housing for married and single personnel assigned to sea duty, with and without dependents. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for Reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus; 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; the special 

pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority units; 

the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service; the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; and income replacement payments for certain reserve component members. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; accession and retention 

bonuses for psychologists; the accession bonus for registered 

nurses; incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; special pay for 

Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime 

specialties; the accession bonus for dental officers; the accession 

bonus for pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus 

for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
143 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service; the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members; the general 

bonus authority for officers; the special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for nuclear officers; the special aviation incentive pay 

and bonus authorities; and the special health professions incentive 

pay and bonus authorities. The provision would also extend for 1 

year the authority to pay hazardous duty pay; assignment pay or 

special duty pay; the skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus; and 

the retention bonus for members with critical military skills or assigned to high priority units. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 

other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for active members; the enlistment bonus; the accession bonus for new officers in 

critical skills; the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage; the incentive bonus for 

transfer between armed forces; and the accession bonus for officer 

candidates. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the health professions referral bonus and 

the Army referral bonus under sections 1030 and 3252 of title 10, 

United States Code, respectively. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Travel and transportation allowances for attendance of 

members and certain other persons at Yellow Ribbon 

Reintegration Program events (sec. 621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

travel and transportation allowances for members of the uniformed 

services and up to three designees to attend Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program events. 

The committee believes that the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 

Program is evolving as a resource capable of significantly improving the well-being of members of the Guard and Reserve and their 

families as they continue to experience extensive and repeated deployments. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to fully 

implement the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and to ensure 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
144 

access to support services needed in all phases of the deployment 

cycle, before and during deployment, demobilization, and post-deployment reconstitution. The Department of Defense should seek 

greater consistency and coordination of reintegration programs 

within and among the States. Finally, the committee believes that 

outreach services must include assistance and support for military 

families with special needs. 

Authority for payment of full replacement value for loss or 

damage to household goods in certain cases not covered 

by carrier liability (sec. 622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries to pay full replacement value for property lost or damaged in the course of a household goods shipment under certain circumstances where reimbursement is not available from the contracted carrier. 

Subtitle D—Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits 

Repeal of automatic enrollment in Family Servicemembers’ 

Group Life Insurance for members of the armed forces 

married to other members (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1967 of title 38, United States Code, to remove service members from automatic enrollment as a dependent under the Family 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program when they are insured on their own behalf under the Servicemembers’ Group Life 

Insurance program. 

Conformity of special compensation for members with injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living 

with monthly personal caregiver stipend under Department of Veterans Affairs program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 439 of title 37, United States Code, to establish the rate of the 

monthly stipend under the Department of Defense family caregiver 

compensation program as the amount of the caregiver stipend 

under the Department of Veterans Affairs program of comprehensive assistance for family caregivers authorized in section 1720g of 

title 38, United States Code. The committee continues to believe 

that the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs must work 

together to ensure seamless transition of care of all service members retiring for disability, and directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to ensure that 

caregivers of active-duty service members have access to appropriate caregiver instruction, preparation, and training for which 

they are eligible under the comprehensive Veterans Affairs family 

caregiver program. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report no later 

than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act on implementation of appropriate caregiver training programs for caregivers of active-duty service members eligible for compensation under section 

439 of title 37, United States Code. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
145 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense use 

and management of incentive pays and bonuses 

The committee remains dedicated to ensuring the military pay 

and compensation system is sufficient to field a high quality all-volunteer force, to include filling hard-to-fill or critical specialties. The 

Department of Defense and the military services have at their disposal a number of special and incentive pays and bonuses to 

incentivize recruitment and retention behavior to meet their needs. 

It is crucial that the Department and the services accurately assess 

shortages that require incentives to fill, and pay appropriate 

amounts to fill those shortages. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to assess the Department’s and services’ use of cash incentives to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals for service 

in the armed forces to fill hard-to-fill or critical wartime specialties. 

The Comptroller General shall include in the assessment an analysis of the hard-to-fill and critical shortages of the Department and 

the services, their effort to close those shortages through the use 

of cash incentives, and the effectiveness of those efforts. The Comptroller General shall include in its review both incentives to new 

recruits to fill hard-to-fill or critical positions as well as incentives 

for current service members to stay in service or to change their 

military occupational specialty to fill a more critical need. Finally, 

the Comptroller General shall verify the extent to which the Department and the services have effective mechanisms in place to 

appropriately designate which military occupational specialties are 

critical and do in fact require incentives to fill. 

The Comptroller General shall report to the congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2011, on the results of this 

assessment and any recommendations for legislative change it believes appropriate to overcome personnel shortages in hard-to-fill or 

critical specialties. 

Comptroller General review of Department of Defense report on housing standards and housing surveys used to 

determine basic allowance for housing 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the Department of Defense report on housing standards and housing surveys required by section 605 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) due to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2010, to determine if the Department is using the most effective, accurate, and efficient system 

for setting basic allowance for housing (BAH) rates. As part of this 

review, the Comptroller General shall independently assess the effects of Department base realignment decisions on post populations, and whether the Department has adequately accounted for 

these basing decisions in determining proper BAH rates, especially 

in rural areas where the surrounding housing stock may not support a sudden influx of personnel resulting in housing costs that 

may not be reflected in the established BAH rates. The Comptroller 

General shall provide the results of this review, including any recVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
146 

ommendations for statutory change, to the congressional defense 

committees no later than April 1, 2011. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(147) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program 

One-year extension of ceiling on charges for inpatient care 

under the TRICARE program (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the current limitation on charges for inpatient care in a civilian hospital under TRICARE Standard. 

Extension of dependent coverage under the TRICARE program (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to provide coverage under 

the TRICARE program for certain dependents of eligible beneficiaries up to the age of 26 for a premium equal to the total cost 

of coverage as determined by the Secretary of Defense based on actual program costs. 

Under current law, a dependent of a service member or eligible 

retiree may only qualify for coverage under the TRICARE program 

until they reach age 21, or age 23 if enrolled in school full-time. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111– 

148) requires group health plans and health insurers to make coverage available to qualifying dependents until the child reaches 26 

years of age. This provision would ensure that eligible dependents 

of TRICARE beneficiaries are afforded an opportunity to obtain 

similar coverage. 

Recognition of licensed mental health counselors as authorized providers under the TRICARE program (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1079(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code, to include licensed 

mental health counselors in the list of providers who are authorized to diagnose and treat patients under the TRICARE program. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to issue 

regulations within 180 days of the enactment of this Act setting 

forth the specific requirements that such counselors must meet in 

order to practice independently under TRICARE. 

The committee notes that the study and report submitted by the 

Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences on 

the Provision of Mental Health Counseling Services Under 

TRICARE pursuant to section 717 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) was published in February of this year. The report’s two recommendations 

are: to allow the independent practice of mental health counselors 

in TRICARE under certain guidelines, to include appropriate levels 

of education, licensure, and clinical experience; and to establish a 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
148 

comprehensive quality management system for all mental health 

professionals. 

The committee directs the Secretary to report on implementation 

of the IOM recommendations no later than May 1, 2011, including 

implementation of the quality management system. 

Plan for enhancement of quality, efficiencies, and savings in 

the military health care system (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and submit a plan setting forth actions to be taken to enhance quality, efficiencies, and savings within the military health care system. The committee expects the plan 

to be a product of collaboration with all military department components of the health care system and its partners, including Designated Providers of the U.S. Family Health Plan, and managed 

care support contractors. 

The committee acknowledges that senior leaders within the Department of Defense are calling for an increase in fees for 

TRICARE, which have remained unchanged since l995. However, 

the committee believes that the Department must first do everything within reason to make the health care system more efficient, 

to improve quality, and to lower cost, through improvements in 

business practices and preventive care, while maintaining high and 

improving levels of beneficiary satisfaction. 

The committee notes with concern a recent analysis of emergency 

room visits in one TRICARE Region which concluded that overall 

emergency room visits by TRICARE beneficiaries were 133 percent 

greater than a well managed commercial plan. The committee 

urges the Department to accelerate its efforts to find alternatives 

that ensure access and quality care in appropriate medical settings. 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Postdeployment health reassessments for purposes of the 

medical tracking system for members of the armed 

forces deployed overseas (sec. 711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

postdeployment health reassessments (PDHRA) be included in the 

medical tracking system and quality assurance program for members deployed overseas. The provision would also require that the 

results of medical examinations conducted under the system include information on the prescription and administration of psychotropic medications. 

The PDHRA is required by Department of Defense (DOD) policy 

issued in March 2005, based on findings that health concerns, particularly those involving mental health, are frequently identified 

several months following a service member’s return from deployment. 

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found in a study published in November 2009 that DOD’s central 

repository of PDHRA questionnaires was missing questionnaires 

from approximately 72,000 service members, or 23 percent of the 

population studied. GAO concluded that as a result, DOD does not 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
149 

have reasonable assurance that health concerns can be identified 

and addressed. 

The committee believes that the PDHRA can be effective in 

proactively identifying health concerns that emerge following deployments, but believes that better documentation is needed, and 

that DOD must design and implement, as part of its quality assurance program, a methodologically sound means of determining 

whether or not service members referred for care obtain the care 

that is needed. 

In addition, the committee remains concerned about DOD’s inability to track the prescription and administration of medications 

in theater, especially of psychotropic medications. In response to 

questions for the record from a March 2010 Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on the military health care system, the committee 

was informed that the Military Health System Pharmacy Data 

Transaction Service has no visibility of pharmacy data for prescriptions dispensed in forward operating areas. Therefore, the provision clarifies that the language requiring DOD to keep records of 

all health care services received by members prior to or during the 

course of their deployment must include the prescription and administration of psychotropic medications. The committee expects 

the Department to expeditiously implement a reliable method to 

track and manage the prescription and use of pharmaceuticals, to 

include psychotropic medications, by deployed service members. 

Comprehensive policy on consistent automated neurological 

cognitive assessments of members of the armed forces 

before and after deployment (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive 

policy on consistent automated neurological cognitive assessments 

of all service members who are preparing to deploy and all members who have returned from deployment and have experienced an 

event which could result in traumatic brain injury or a concussion. 

Restoration of previous policy regarding restrictions on use 

of Department of Defense medical facilities (sec. 713) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 

prohibition on the use of a medical treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense to perform an abortion except 

where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 

carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result 

of an act of rape or incest. The prohibition on using Department 

of Defense funds to perform abortions except where the life of the 

mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term 

would remain in effect. 

Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for commandsponsored dependents of members assigned to remote 

locations outside the continental United States (sec. 714) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1040(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay travel expenses for a command-sponsored 

dependent of a service member assigned to a remote location outVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
150 

side the continental United States who requires or elects certain 

anesthesia services for childbirth to a location in the United States. 

Under current law, payment of travel expenses is authorized for 

required medical attention that is not available in the locality in 

order to travel to the nearest medical facility in which adequate 

medical care is available, which may not be in the United States. 

The provision would clarify that obstetrical anesthesia services for 

childbirth should be included in the scope of required medical attention. 

Clarification of authority for transfer of medical records 

from the Department of Defense to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (sec. 715) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1614 of the Wounded Warrior Act (found in Public Law 110– 

181) to align the Act with Health Insurance and Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations permitting the release of 

information without the specific authorization of the service member from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA), with respect to service members who may be 

transitioning to the VA medical system. 

The provision would align law with current HIPAA regulations, 

and the absence of this change would lead to costly and unnecessary information system changes and delays in transfer of records 

for wounded, ill, and injured service members entering the disability evaluation system. 

Clarification of licensure requirements applicable to military health-care professionals who are members of the 

National Guard performing certain duty while in state 

status (sec. 716) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1094(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain 

National Guard personnel with a current health care license to provide health care while performing training or duty under section 

502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in response to an actual or 

potential disaster. 

Education and training on use of pharmaceuticals in rehabilitation programs for wounded warriors (sec. 717) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement education and 

training programs on the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in or 

in transition to a wounded warrior unit, medical caregivers, medical case managers, nonmedical case managers, military leaders, 

and family members. The committee is concerned about reports of 

and perceptions among seriously ill and injured soldiers that they 

are over-medicated. 

The committee recognizes that most medical and nurse education 

programs lack formal training in clinical pharmacology. Moreover, 

the rapid pace of pharmaceutical development exceeds the ability 

of providers and patients to keep up with current science, including 

the benefits and risks of pharmacological agents, and the consequences of mixing certain medications. For those reasons, the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
151 

committee believes that additional training is a necessary component of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) response to concerns 

about over-medication of seriously ill and injured service members. 

The committee directs the Secretary to work with the medical departments of each service, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health in the development of the 

training plan, and to report to the committee within 180 days of 

the enactment of this Act on plans to implement this requirement. 

The report shall include a description of existing training through 

DOD and non-DOD entities, and how or if such readily available 

programs can be utilized to fulfill this requirement. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Report on Department of Defense support of members of the 

armed forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of vaccinations required by the Department (sec. 

731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review and submit a report on the adequacy and effectiveness of Department of Defense (DOD) policies, 

procedures, and systems in place to provide support to members of 

the armed forces who experience traumatic injury as a result of a 

vaccination required by DOD. 

The report would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to assess the advisability of extending Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance to cover such traumatic adverse reactions to DOD-required 

vaccinations. 

Repeal of report requirement on separations resulting from 

refusal to participate in anthrax vaccine immunization 

program (sec. 732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1178 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the requirement that the Secretary of Defense report annually to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the numbers of service members separated from the service for refusal to participate in the anthrax vaccine immunization 

program. This report is no longer necessary as only one service 

member has been separated for refusal to participate in this program since 2004. 

Items of Special Interest 

Cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury 

Section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required the Secretary of Defense 

to conduct a clinical trial to assess the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapy for members and former members of the armed 

forces who have been diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury, and 

to recommend whether or not such therapy should be a covered 

benefit under the TRICARE program. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
152 

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), cognitive rehabilitation therapy is a ‘‘long-standing and a significant component 

of comprehensive rehabilitation for persons with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury,’’ and, when provided in conjunction 

with therapies to improve speech, language, occupational capabilities and physical therapy, cognitive rehabilitative therapy is provided both within numerous military treatment facilities and under 

the TRICARE program. However, scientific literature supporting 

the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapy in patients with persistent symptoms and/or functional limitations as a result of mild 

traumatic brain injury—one of the most common injuries sustained 

on the battlefield—remains small. 

The committee is pleased that the Department has issued guidance to the military departments to track the outcome of cognitive 

rehabilitation therapy for patients with mild traumatic brain injury 

provided by military treatment facilities beginning in calendar year 

2010. Additionally, the committee has been informed that the Department will conduct the clinical trial required by section 723 of 

Public Law 111–84 utilizing up to 2 military treatment facilities in 

conjunction with 17 clinical sites of the Defense and Veterans 

Brain Injury Center. These efforts demonstrate the commitment of 

the Department to validating the most effective therapies, based on 

needed scientific evidence, for mild traumatic brain injuries incurred on the battlefield. Together, these efforts can lead to better 

health outcomes and inform policymakers within the Department 

on future benefit changes within the TRICARE program. 

The committee directs the Secretary to report no later than February 1, 2011, on the following: 

(1) DOD-wide and service specific policies, procedures, and 

diagnostic tools concerning traumatic brain injury before, during, and after deployment; 

(2) best practices in clinical practice and staffing of military 

treatment facilities and clinics for providing treatment for 

traumatic brain injuries; 

(3) evidence of clinical outcomes; 

(4) collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs in 

screening, treatment, and research; and 

(5) efforts to improve early detection and treatment of mild 

traumatic brain injury. 

The report shall also include a review of coverage for cognitive 

rehabilitation therapy by public and private health programs, and 

the scientific basis for such coverage. 

Embedded behavioral health providers 

The committee continues to be concerned about the challenges of 

identifying and preventing behavioral health problems among service members returning from deployment, and is pleased to learn of 

efforts to implement the recommendation of the Department of Defense (DOD) Task Force on Mental Health in June 2007 to embed 

mental health providers within military units, both during deployment and in garrison. 

One example is the Army’s Mobile Behavioral Health Team 

(MBHT) at Fort Carson, Colorado. The team consists of six 

credentialed behavioral health providers (two psychologists and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
153 

four licensed clinical social workers), each of whom is assigned exclusively to a single battalion within a brigade combat team. Their 

goal is to improve early identification of behavioral health problems 

through more accurate diagnosis, remove barriers to care, and improve treatment outcomes. The committee has learned that initial 

results of the MBHT program are positive, with service members 

reporting high levels of satisfaction, unit leaders reporting positive 

improvements in behavioral health, and fewer reported risk behaviors, such as suicide attempts, domestic problems, or substance 

abuse. The committee encourages the Army, upon completion of its 

evaluation of the Fort Carson program, to replicate the successful 

elements of this model elsewhere, to facilitate early identification 

and treatment of behavioral health concerns, and to mitigate both 

inpatient psychiatric admissions and the necessity of referrals offpost for mental health care. 

The committee has learned of other initiatives that involve embedding behavioral health counselors within National Guard units 

that have returned from deployment. Evidence is emerging that 

these efforts have the potential to help reduce stigma and encourage service members to seek and receive care before their conditions worsen. 

The committee acknowledges the priority that the Department 

has placed on improving behavioral health care for service members and their families, including efforts to increase the number of 

mental health providers. The committee reiterates its concern that 

medical and dental readiness, including behavioral health care, 

must be a priority for the Guard and reserve. Unfortunately, according to the Department of Defense, fewer than 20 percent of 

those eligible for health care coverage under TRICARE Reserve Select are taking advantage of that option. The Department must redouble its efforts to reach out to eligible members with information 

on TRICARE medical and dental benefits for the Guard and reserve. In addition, section 735 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) 

clarified that funds available for operation and maintenance of a 

reserve component of the armed forces may be available for medical 

and dental readiness of reserve component members. The committee expects that such funds will be utilized for that purpose, especially in behavioral health. 

The committee urges the Department to continue its implementation of recommendations of the DOD Task Force on Mental 

Health, to include the designation of full-time directors for psychological health at military installations and within the Guard and 

reserve. The committee believes that it is critical to ensure visible 

leadership in support of service members seeking behavioral health 

care at every level of Department of Defense component organizations. 

Live tissue training 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

currently augments combat trauma training with the use of live 

animals, known as live tissue training, when no suitable alternative exists. According to the Department, live tissue training is 

fundamental in providing combat medics with the skill sets reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
154 

quired to perform a number of life-saving procedures and stabilize 

seriously injured military personnel on the battlefield. The committee notes that DOD sees significant value in live tissue training, 

particularly because combat medics are deployed after a condensed 

training program, in most cases, without having gone through medical school. Following such training, combat medics must possess 

proficiency in a variety of complicated medical procedures which 

they are often required to perform in the dark, under fire, and in 

remote locations. According to the Department, simulators currently lack sufficient realism and the ability to replicate combat 

wounds and the associated emotional stressors combat medics face 

on the battlefield. The committee also notes that the Department’s 

use of live tissue training is strictly regulated by a number of federal laws and policies and accredited by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, an international non-profit organization that promotes humane use of animals in science. 

On September 5, 2008, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics established the Use of Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint Analysis Team 

(ULAMET JAT) to address the use of live animals for DOD medical 

readiness training. The ULAMET JAT found that several critical/ 

high stakes medical procedures are not presently able to be taught 

using simulation, including treatment of certain penetrating chest 

wounds, amputation, and hemostasis. The ULAMET JAT noted in 

its final report, dated July 12, 2009, that ‘‘live animal training is 

the singular opportunity to experience management of injuries in 

a living system prior to deployment to a combat zone. The next opportunity to use these skills very likely will be treating combat 

wounded.’’ The ULAMET JAT final report also made nine recommendations related to the Department’s policies on the use of 

animals in combat trauma training and plans to validate and adopt 

alternatives, including simulation technologies. 

The committee believes that the Department should continue to 

aggressively pursue alternatives to the use of live animals in combat trauma training. However, the committee also believes that the 

use of animals in combat trauma training remains appropriate for 

critical/high-risk medical procedures, until such time that alternatives are developed to provide combat medics a better training 

experience that more closely replicates the combat wounds and 

emotional stressors encountered on the battlefield. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, 

on the status of the Department’s implementation of the nine actions recommended by the ULAMET JAT in its final report. 

Report on the use of temporary military contingency payment adjustments for TRICARE Outpatient Prospective 

Payment System rates 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for extending the comment period on the final rule implementing rate 

changes for the TRICARE Outpatient Prospective Payment System 

last year, in order to align reimbursement rates with Medicare as 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
155 

required by law. The final rule included not only a phase-in period 

for both network and non-network hospitals serving TRICARE 

beneficiaries, but also a provision for a temporary military contingency payment adjustment (TMCPA) at any time for hospitals 

deemed essential for military readiness and support of contingency 

operations as well as authority for a general TMCPA to address 

other special needs. 

The committee, however, continues to hear from hospitals serving a large number of TRICARE beneficiaries that the application 

process to receive TMCPAs is long, that metrics by which they are 

being judged for adjustment payments are unclear, and that there 

is confusion among TRICARE regional officers and local support 

contractors about the application and approval process. 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to report on and provide an assessment of the application process for 

provision of TMCPAs for the TRICARE Outpatient Prospective 

Payment System. The report and assessment must include: 

(1) the number of hospitals that have applied for a TMCPA 

since May 1, 2009; 

(2) a list of the hospitals that have been granted a TMCPA; 

(3) the average processing time for TMCPA applications; 

(4) the average time for receipt of reimbursement of TMCPA 

amounts; 

(5) a list of the TMCPA rate adjustment levels granted to approved hospitals, by hospital; 

(6) the metrics by which the Department decides whether to 

grant a TMCPA and the adjustment level provided; 

(7) whether the Department works with providers to ensure 

applications are complete; 

(8) whether providers are given access to supporting data, information, and conclusions of the TMCPA adjustment decision, 

whether or not it receives such an adjustment; 

(9) whether there is an appeals process in place for hospitals; 

(10) the training provided to TRICARE regional officers and 

local support contractors on the TMCPA application process; 

and 

(11) the feasibility of not requiring annual re-application. 

The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit this 

report and assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 

2011. 

The committee recognizes that civilian hospitals are essential to 

the success of the TRICARE program. The committee therefore directs the Department of Defense to make the TMCPA application 

process as transparent as possible, and to increase lines of communication with these health care providers. The committee also believes there should be a timeframe set for notification and receipt 

of final settlement amounts to hospitals, in order to ensure that 

hospitals are able to budget for future years. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense estimates 

Defense Health Program savings of $793.0 million in fiscal year 

2011 as a result of implementing the Outpatient Prospective Payment System. In addition, the Department estimates a $60.0 million savings in out of pocket expenses for TRICARE beneficiaries 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
156 

under the Extra and Standard options as a result of reduced cost 

sharing. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(157) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Improvements to structure and functioning of Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would update section 181 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the provision appropriately reflects the role of the Vice Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior Department of Defense officials in the development of joint military requirements. The committee expects the changes made by this provision to facilitate: (1) 

an enhanced role for the combatant commanders in addressing 

issues within their expertise; (2) a greater emphasis on portfolio 

management, rather than service-specific approaches to military 

needs; (3) early trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance 

in the development of new requirements; and (4) more effective collaboration between the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes. 

Cost estimates for program baselines and contract negotiations for major defense acquisition and major automated information system programs (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2334 of title 10, U.S. Code, to clarify the distinction between 

cost estimates developed for baseline descriptions and budgetary 

purposes, and cost estimates developed for the purpose of contract 

negotiations and the obligation of funds. Under this provision, cost 

estimates developed for baseline descriptions and budgetary purposes would be developed to provide a high degree of confidence 

that the program can be completed without the need for significant 

adjustment to program budgets. Cost estimates developed for contract negotiation purposes would be based on the government’s reasonable expectation of successful contractor performance in accordance with the contractor’s proposal and previous experience. 

The committee understands that the phrase ‘‘a high degree of 

confidence that the program can be completed without the need for 

significant adjustment to program budgets’’ means no less than a 

50 percent confidence level. In programs with a wide range of uncertainty, a confidence level of greater than 50 percent may be required to ensure a high degree of confidence that significant budget 

adjustments will not be required. 

Section 2334 was included in the Weapon Systems Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) to address the problems 

caused by the reliance of the Department of Defense (DOD) on unrealistic and overly optimistic cost estimates to make program and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
158 

budget decisions. Senator Levin explained the need for the provision as follows: 

‘‘[C]ontractors and program offices have every reason to 

produce optimistic cost estimates and unrealistic performance 

expectations, because programs that promise revolutionary 

change and project lower costs are more likely to be approved 

and funded by senior Administration officials and by Congress. 

In other words, we get the information we need to run our programs from people who have a vested interest in overpromising. . . . 

‘‘The consequences of using such optimistic estimates were 

correctly identified by DOD’s Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) panel two years ago. The DAPA panel found that 

‘Using optimistic budget estimates . . . forces excessive annual 

reprogramming and budget exercises within the Department, 

which in turn causes program ‘‘restructuring’’ that drives longterm cost, causes schedule growth, and opens the door to requirements creep.’ ’’ 

Unfortunately, some DOD program officials have taken the view 

that the conservative cost estimates developed for budgetary purposes should also be used for contract negotiation purposes, i.e., 

that if DOD has decided that it should be prepared for the possibility that a program might cost significantly more than the contractor predicts, we should pay the contractor on that basis. This 

approach would lock in a worst case cost scenario and eliminate 

any incentive for the contractor to achieve more successful program 

outcomes. The committee concludes that budgetary estimates necessarily differ from estimates used for contract negotiation purposes, because they serve a different purpose. 

Management of manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue comprehensive guidance on the management of manufacturing risk in major defense acquisition programs. The provision would also require the Secretary to ensure 

that manufacturing readiness knowledge and skills are given appropriate consideration as the Department of Defense (DOD) identifies areas of need for funding through the Defense Acquisition 

Workforce Development Fund established pursuant to section 1705 

of title 10, United States Code. 

In April 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that billions of dollars in cost growth occur as programs 

transition from development to production. According to GAO, 

much of this cost growth is due to ‘‘inattention to manufacturing 

during planning and design, poor supplier management, and a deficit in manufacturing knowledge among the acquisition workforce. 

Essentially, programs did not identify and resolve manufacturing 

risks early in development, but carried risks into production where 

they emerged as significant problems.’’ 

GAO reports that commercial firms have addressed similar problems through ‘‘a disciplined, gated process that emphasizes manufacturing criteria early in development.’’ DOD has attempted to deVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
159 

velop a similar process, based on Manufacturing Readiness Levels, 

but implementation has been slow. The committee concludes that 

the costs imposed by the Department’s failure to manage manufacturing risk require a stronger and more rapid response. 

Extension of reporting requirements for developmental test 

and evaluation and systems engineering in the military 

departments and Defense Agencies (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 102(b) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–23) to extend by 5 years the requirement for the 

military departments and defense agencies to report on steps that 

they have taken to rebuild the workforce skills and capabilities 

needed to perform key developmental test and evaluation and systems engineering functions. 

Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs under various acquisition-related requirements (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reaffirm that 

where the Department of Defense designates major subprograms in 

accordance with section 2430a of title 10, United States Code, unit 

costs are required to be reported only at the major subprogram 

level. The provision would also clarify that significant cost or 

schedule increases and other changes to designated major subprograms that alter the substantive basis for a milestone decision 

should be reported to the appropriate milestone decision authority 

and the congressional defense committees in accordance with the 

requirements of sections 2366a and 2366b of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Technical and clarifying amendments to Weapon Systems 

Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (sec. 806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and clarifying amendments to the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23). 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management 

New acquisition process for rapid fielding of capabilities in 

response to urgent operational needs (sec. 811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a new acquisition 

process to ensure the rapid fielding of capabilities in response to 

urgent operational needs, in accordance with certain recommendations of the July 2009 report of the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on Fulfillment of Urgent Operational Needs and the April 

2010 report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The 

Secretary would also be required to develop and implement an expedited review process to determine whether capabilities proposed 

as urgent operational needs are appropriate for fielding through 

the rapid acquisition process or should be fielded through the traditional acquisition process. As a general rule, the rapid acquisition 

process would be available only for capabilities that can be fielded 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
160 

within a period of 2 to 24 months, do not require a substantial development effort, are based on technologies that are proven and 

available, and can be acquired under fixed price contracts. 

The acquisition process and the review process required by this 

section would apply to the full range of processes used by the Department of Defense to identify urgent operational needs, including 

both joint urgent operational need statements and comparable documents generated by the military departments and the combatant 

commands. The committee expects the guidance issued pursuant to 

this section to rationalize the relationship between joint processes 

and service-specific processes for responding to such needs. In general, the committee understands that service-specific processes are 

intended to address narrower and more discrete requirements that 

should require minimal development. In the view of the committee, 

a fielding requirement of 180 days or less would be appropriate for 

such requirements. 

In some cases, it appears that the military services have 

stretched the boundaries of rapid acquisition authorities to undertake large and complex acquisition programs that would be more 

suitable to the traditional acquisition process. For example, the 

Marine Corps and the Air Force Special Operations Command have 

used rapid acquisition authority to modify KC–130Js and AC–130s 

for use in theater, while the Army sought to use other transactions 

authority to field Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicles, and 

the Navy and Air Force have proposed leasing commercially-available, propeller-driven aircraft and fundamentally modifying them 

for military use. In view of the high development risk associated 

with some of these programs and the fact that a number of them 

appear to be redundant or duplicative of existing programs, the 

committee concludes that the Department needs stronger guidance 

on the proper application of rapid acquisition processes. 

In April 2010, GAO reported significant shortcomings in existing 

Department of Defense (DOD) processes for meeting urgent operational needs. According to GAO: 

‘‘DOD’s guidance for its urgent needs processes is dispersed and outdated. Further, DOD guidance does not 

clearly define roles and responsibilities for implementing, 

monitoring, and evaluating all phases of those processes or 

incorporate all of the expedited acquisition authorities 

available to acquire joint urgent need solutions. Data systems for the processes lack comprehensive, reliable data 

for tracking overall results and do not have standards for 

collecting and managing data. In addition, the joint process does not include a formal method for feedback to inform joint leadership on the performance of solutions. . . . 

In the absence of a management framework for its urgent 

needs processes, DOD lacks tools to fully assess how well 

its processes work, manage their performance, ensure efficient use of resources, and make decisions regarding the 

long term sustainment of fielded capabilities.’’ 

The committee urges the Department to address these shortcomings in its rapid acquisition processes as quickly as possible. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
161 

Acquisition of major automated information system programs (sec. 812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a program to improve the planning and oversight of the acquisition of major automated information systems by the Department of Defense. Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84) required DOD to develop and implement a new acquisition 

process for information technology systems. The provision recommended by the committee would require that the new acquisition process specifically address the issues of planning, requirements development and management, project management and 

oversight, earned value management, and risk management. In addition, the Department would be required to develop metrics for 

measuring performance measurement and to ensure that key program personnel have an appropriate level of relevant experience, 

training, and education. 

Permanent authority for Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide permanent authority for the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program, 

as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Challenge 

program is designed to provide opportunities for the introduction of 

innovative and cost-saving technology in DOD acquisition programs. 

Exportability features for Department of Defense systems 

(sec. 814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out activities for the design and incorporation of exportability features—such as technology protection 

and capability differentiation features—into defense systems during the research and development phase of Department of Defense 

(DOD) acquisition programs. Under subsection (b) of the provision, 

the use of DOD funds for activities authorized by this subject is 

subject to the availability of appropriated funds for such purpose. 

Appropriated funds are considered to be available if: (1) they are 

authorized and appropriated for the purpose of such activities; or 

(2) they are reprogrammed for such purpose in accordance with established procedures. 

Reduction of supply chain risk in the acquisition of national 

security systems (sec. 815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to take certain steps in the procurement process to reduce supply chain risk in the acquisition of sensitive information technology systems that are used for intelligence or 

cryptologic activities; used for command and control of military 

forces; or form an integral part of a weapons system. In particular, 

the Secretary would be authorized to: (1) reduce supply risk by establishing qualification requirements in accordance with the requirements of section 2319 of title 10, United States Code; (2) provide for the consideration of supply chain risk as a significant evalVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
162 

uation factor in certain solicitations; and (3) exclude a particular 

source from consideration where necessary to avoid an unacceptable supply chain risk. The term ‘‘supply chain risk’’ would be defined, as recommended by the Department of Defense, to mean the 

risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of the system. 

On December 22, 2009, the Secretary of Defense submitted a report on trusted defense systems, as required by section 254 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417). In that report, the Secretary found 

that the globalization of the information technology industry has 

increased the vulnerability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

attacks on its systems and networks. The report found an increasing risk that systems and networks critical to DOD could be exploited through the introduction of counterfeit or malicious code 

and other defects introduced by suppliers of systems or components. The committee concludes that the Secretary should have the 

authority needed to address this risk. 

Department of Defense policy on acquisition and performance of sustainable products and services (sec. 816) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the progress of the Department of Defense in meeting the 

goals and objectives established in Executive Order 13514 for the 

procurement of sustainable products and services. The report would 

be required to address actions taken by the Department to identify 

particular sustainable products and services that could contribute 

to these goals and initiatives, and assess strategies and tools available to promote the use of such products and services across the 

Department. 

Repeal of requirement for certain procurements from firms 

in the small arms production industrial base (sec. 817) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

2473 of title 10, United States Code, and eliminate the restriction 

on the Department of Defense to procure small arms parts only 

from certain manufacturers. 

Section 2473 was the result of an Army Science Board study in 

1994 determining that, in order to preserve the domestic small 

arms industry, weapons parts procurement contracts should be limited to three of the largest manufacturers at that time. The committee understands that the health of the U.S. small arms industrial base has significantly improved over the last 15 years. The 

committee has consistently supported policies and programs that 

encourage technological competition, industrial innovation, and 

competitive pricing. Accordingly, the committee recommends repeal 

of section 2473 of title 10, United States Code. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
163 

Prohibition on Department of Defense procurements from 

entities engaging in commercial activity in the energy 

sector of the Islamic Republic of Iran (sec. 818) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense from entering into any contract for the procurement of any goods or services from any person or entity 

through a contract, grant, loan, or loan guarantee in an amount in 

excess of $1.0 million unless the person or entity certifies to the 

Secretary of Defense that the person or entity is not: (1) in violation of the Iran Sanction Act of 1996, as amended; (2) has not engaged in the sale of refined petroleum products to the Islamic Republic of Iran; (3) has not engaged in an activity that could contribute to enhancing the ability of the Islamic Republic of Iran to 

import refined petroleum; (4) has not engaged in the selling, leasing, or otherwise providing to the Islamic Republic of Iran any 

good, services, or technology that could contribute to maintenance 

or expansion of the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran to 

produce refined petroleum products; or (5) does not own or control 

any person or entity that engage in such activity. The Secretary of 

Defense may waive the prohibition if the Secretary determines that 

the procurement is essential to the national security interests of 

the United States. 

Subtitle C—Amendments Relating to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Pilot program on acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental items (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of streamlined procedures for the acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental items. Under the 

streamlined procedures, covered contractors would not be required 

to provide certified cost or pricing data under section 2306a of title 

10, United States Code, but would be required to provide other 

data for the purpose of price reasonableness determinations. 

The most recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released in 

February 2010, suggests that as the Department of Defense (DOD) 

tries to acquire innovative technologies and solutions to meet military requirements faster and cheaper, it should find more ways to 

involve commercial and small business firms in defense acquisitions. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) already includes a preference for both commercial items and other nondevelopmental items, the FAR does not include any procedures to 

incentivize the private development of items that serve solely a 

military purpose. In fact, the military purpose of an item developed 

exclusively at private expense may prevent DOD from using 

streamlined acquisition processes that are available for the purchase of commercial items. 

The pilot program under this section is designed to test whether 

the streamlined procedures similar to those available for commercial items can serve as an effective incentive for non-traditional defense contractors to: (1) channel investment and innovation into 

areas that are useful to DOD; and (2) provide items developed exVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
164 

clusively at private expense to meet validated military requirements. 

The committee notes that the streamlined acquisition procedures 

developed under this section may have a particular utility in the 

Department’s efforts to rapidly field military capabilities in response to urgent operational needs. 

Competition for production and sustainment and rights in 

technical data (sec. 832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue guidance on rights in technical data 

to ensure that the Department of Defense (DOD) preserves the option of competition for contracts for the production and 

sustainment of systems or subsystems that are developed exclusively with Federal funds or without significant contribution by a 

contractor or subcontractor and that the United States is not required to pay more than once for the same technical data. The provision would also provide DOD with improved tools to address situations in which a contractor has erroneously asserted a restriction 

on the use or release of technical data that was developed exclusively with Federal funds or without significant contribution by the 

contractor or subcontractor. 

Elimination of sunset date for protests of task and delivery 

order contracts (sec. 833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2304c of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the sunset 

date for protests of task and delivery orders under Department of 

Defense contracts. The sunset date was included in section 2304c 

to provide the committee an opportunity to adjust the provision if 

the new protest authority resulted in a surge of bid protests. In 

April 2009, the Government Accountability Office reported that 

only a handful of bid protests are attributable to the new authority. 

The committee concludes that no adjustment to the authority is 

needed. 

Inclusion of option amounts in limitations on authority of 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to 

carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the dollar thresholds applicable to prototype projects carried out 

pursuant to section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160) include all option 

amounts. 

Enhancement of Department of Defense authority to respond to combat and safety emergencies through rapid 

acquisition and deployment of urgently needed supplies 

(sec. 835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), as amended by section 811 

of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), to enhance the authority 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
165 

provided to the Secretary of Defense to respond quickly to combat 

emergencies, as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The amendment would: (1) authorize DOD to use that authority for 

the acquisition of all kinds of supplies—including material, equipment, and stores; (2) extend the application of the authority from 

cases in which combat fatalities have occurred to cases in which 

combat casualties have occurred or are imminent; and (3) double 

the ceiling on the use of the authority to $200.0 million in any fiscal year and clarify the applicability of the ceiling. The committee 

continues to believe that DOD should have the flexibility it needs 

to rapidly acquire supplies that are likely to prevent imminent casualties on the battlefield. 

Subtitle D—Contractor Matters 

Contractor business systems (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a program for the improvement of 

contractor business systems to ensure that such systems provide 

timely, reliable information for the management of Department of 

Defense programs by the contractor and by the Department. 

Section 887 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as amended by 

section 302 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–23), directed the Department of Defense to report 

to Congress on the implementation of earned value management 

(EVM) systems. The Secretary’s report, which was transmitted to 

Congress on November 2, 2009, concluded that: 

‘‘The effectiveness of the Department’s use of EVM is 

limited by the underlying quality of the data and by the 

inability to gain access to contractor data, due to antiquated systems. . . . DOD’s access to data is an issue because many contractors have not updated their business 

systems in decades. These older systems rely on manual 

interfaces that are prone to errors. In addition, industry 

has not fulfilled its role or self-surveillance. [The Defense 

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) has] found, in 

many reviews, that contractors are not compliant with the 

guidelines in ANSI/EIA–748 [the industry-wide standard] 

and have not adequately identified those deficiencies themselves.’’ 

The report indicates that of the last 13 comprehensive reviews 

conducted by DCMA, only two contractors were found to be compliant with the industry-wide standard. According to the report, the 

data quality problems in contractor business systems ‘‘hinder the 

government’s ability to meet program objectives by delaying or 

masking insight into developing problems.’’ 

Reports by DCMA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and the 

Commission on Wartime Contracting indicate that the problems 

identified by the Secretary are not unique to EVM systems, but extend to many other types of contractor business systems—such as 

estimating systems, purchasing systems, and material manageVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
166 

ment systems—on which the Department of Defense also places 

heavy reliance. 

Oversight and accountability of contractors performing private security functions in areas of combat operations 

(sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) require 

contracting activities to assign an appropriate number of personnel 

to the oversight of contractors performing private security functions 

in areas of combat operations; and (2) provide new measures to ensure the accountability of such contractors for any failure by their 

employees or subcontractors to comply with the requirements of 

law or regulation, or with directives from combatant commanders. 

The senior United States commander on the ground in Afghanistan has expressed serious concerns about the use of private security contractors in that country and stressed that private security 

functions should be placed under the direct control of the Government of Afghanistan or be legitimate coalition forces. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by no later than December 1, 2010, on 

steps that the Department has taken or plans to take, if any, to 

reduce its use of private security contractors in Afghanistan. 

Enhancements of authority of Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny award fees to companies found to jeopardize the health or safety of Government personnel 

(sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to 

make determinations of fault in cases where the Secretary has reason to believe that a contractor, in the performance of a contract, 

may have caused the serious bodily injury or death of civilian or 

military personnel of the Department of Defense (DOD). If the Secretary finds that a contractor caused the death or serious injury 

through gross negligence or with reckless disregard for the safety 

of such personnel, this determination may be considered in award 

fee determinations under section 823, and in past performance 

evaluations and assessments of contractor responsibility under section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). A determination by the 

Secretary under this section would not be determinative of fault for 

any other purpose. 

The committee anticipates that investigations under this provision would be conducted pursuant to existing Department of Defense procedures for administrative fact-finding investigations, 

such as those provided by Army Regulation 15–6 and the Manual 

of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN) of the Navy. The committee understands that a contractor would have the same right to 

challenge award fee determinations, past performance evaluations, 

and assessments of contractor responsibility that are made on the 

basis of a determination under this section as they currently have 

to challenge determinations, evaluations, and assessments that are 

made on any other basis. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
167 

Under current law, a case of death or injury to civilian or military personnel may be excluded from consideration under section 

823 because the U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to make a determination of fault, or because the contractor is immune from a civil action in the case. The committee concludes that conduct resulting in 

the death or serious injury of U.S. Government personnel should 

be considered in the evaluation of contractor performance, regardless whether such conduct is justiciable in the United States courts. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Extension of acquisition workforce personnel management 

demonstration program (sec. 851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through September 30, 2017, the acquisition workforce personnel 

management demonstration program authorized by section 4308 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106). 

Non-availability exception from Buy American requirements 

for procurement of hand or measuring tools (sec. 852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the domestic non-availability exception in the Berry amendment, 

section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, applies to the purchase of hand or measuring tools. This provision, which was requested by the Department of Defense, is needed to ensure that the 

Department has continued access to hand or measuring tools that 

are not available from domestic sources. 

Five-year extension of Department of Defense MentorProte ́ge ́ Program (sec. 853) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 5 

years the mentor-prote ́ge ́ program authorized by section 831 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public 

Law 101–510), as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Extension and expansion of small business programs of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 854) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through September 30, 2018, the Department of Defense Small 

Business Innovative Research program, Small Business Technology 

Transfer program, and Small Business Commercialization Pilot 

Program. 

The committee notes that these programs have successfully invested in innovative research and technologies that have contributed significantly to the expansion of the defense industrial base 

and the development of new military systems and capabilities. The 

committee believes that a multiyear extension of these programs 

will enhance overall program effectiveness by providing program 

stability and enabling participants in both the government and the 

small business community to better plan budgets and investments. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
168 

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

855) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 4 

years the authority for Department of Defense (DOD) contractors 

to negotiate comprehensive small business subcontracting plans in 

accordance with section 834 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101–189), as requested by the Department. The provision would also require DOD, 

in consultation with the Small Business Administration, to report 

to Congress by no later than March 1, 2012, on the impact and results of the program. 

Report on supply of fire resistant fiber for production of 

military uniforms (sec. 856) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Government Accountability Office to report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the supply chain for fire resistant fiber for the production of military uniforms. 

Contractor logistics support of contingency operations (sec. 

857) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Defense Science Board to carry out a comprehensive review of Department of Defense (DOD) organization, doctrine, training, and 

planning for contractor logistics support of contingency operations. 

The provision would also require that the Quadrennial Defense Review and other military planning documents address the expected 

roles and responsibilities of contractors in military operations and 

associated risks. 

DOD’s operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have relied on contractor logistics support to an unprecedented degree. In Iraq, the 

U.S. has maintained roughly equal numbers of contractor personnel and military forces, although the military force has been 

drawn down more rapidly than the contractor force over the last 

year. In Afghanistan, contractors have consistently outnumbered 

military forces, with 104,000 DOD contractor personnel supporting 

64,000 troops as of September 2009. 

Because the Department’s use of contractor logistics support has 

reduced costs, increased efficiency, and enabled military forces to 

focus on warfighting efforts, it appears likely that the United 

States will continue to rely heavily upon such support in future 

conflicts. In too many cases, however, such reliance has been driven by day-to-day military needs without adequate consideration to 

organizational and doctrinal issues. As a result, the Department 

faces a series of difficult questions about the reliance on contractors 

in future conflicts. For example: 

• Are there logistics functions that should be performed by government personnel? • Are there types of military operations in which it would be inappropriate to rely so extensively on contractor logistics support? 

• What organic capabilities does the Department need to support such functions or operations? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
169 

• Should the Department rely on a single logistics contractor to 

manage support operations, or contract directly with a number of 

support contractors? 

• How should the Department structure itself to ensure proper 

management and oversight of contractor personnel on the battlefield? 

• To what extent should the Department rely upon local nationals, and third-country nationals, to provide logistics support? 

• What level of detail on contractor logistics support should be 

included in operational plans for contingency operations? 

• What steps should the Department take to ensure that an appropriate level of contracting expertise is available to the officials 

responsible for developing such plans? 

The committee believes that a systematic review is needed to ensure that the Department’s organization, doctrine, training, and 

planning for contractor logistics support can help shape the appropriate use of contractor logistics support in future conflicts. 

Items of Special Interest 

Acquisition workforce strategic plan 

Section 851 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended by section 1108 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84), requires the Secretary of Defense to include a separate chapter 

on the defense acquisition workforce in the Department’s annual 

strategic human capital plan. As the committee explained in its report on the 2008 bill, this planning requirement is an essential step 

toward addressing well-documented shortcomings in the acquisition 

workforce of the Department of Defense (DOD): 

‘‘Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel chartered pursuant to section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) 

reported that ‘curtailed investments in human capital have 

produced an acquisition workforce that often lacks the 

training and resources to function effectively.’ As a result, 

‘The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its 

current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands that have been placed on it.’ The failure of DOD 

and other federal agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the Panel concluded, is ‘ ‘‘penny wise and 

pound foolish,’’ as it seriously undermines the pursuit of 

good value for the expenditure of public resources.’ ’’ 

The acquisition workforce strategic plan submitted by the Department in April 2010, after several years of effort, provides a viable, data-driven approach to rebuilding the DOD acquisition workforce that is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of section 

851 and section 1108. The committee commends the Department 

for the quality of the plan and urges the Department to continue 

to use this document as a baseline to drive DOD strategy for the 

acquisition workforce and report on progress in implementing that 

strategy over the period of the future years defense program. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
170 

The committee notes that: (1) the Department’s plan for the test 

and evaluation workforce appears to be inconsistent with the high 

priority given to rebuilding that workforce in the Weapon Systems 

Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23); (2) the plan 

does not appear to include any metric for measuring the Department’s progress toward meeting the requirement of section 820 of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), regarding key leadership positions in the acquisition workforce; and (3) the material provided by 

the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force 

would be more useful if it were presented in the same format as 

the balance of the plan. The committee urges the Department to 

address these issues in its next annual update of the plan. 

Configuration Steering Boards 

Section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) required the 

military departments to establish Configuration Steering Boards 

(CSB) to control cost growth on major defense acquisition programs 

(MDAP). CSBs are required to review proposed changes to program 

requirements or system configuration that could adversely impact 

program cost and to recommend changes that improve program 

cost in a manner consistent with program objectives. Section 814 

requires that a CSB meet to consider each major defense acquisition program at least once each year. 

However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported 

in March 2010 that ‘‘Only a few programs reported holding configuration steering boards to review requirements changes, significant 

technical changes, or de-scoping options in 2009.’’ According to 

GAO, only seven of 42 MDAPs reviewed reported holding a configuration steering board meeting in 2009 and only one program presented potential de-scoping options to decrease cost and schedule 

risk consistent with program objectives. Moreover, the committee 

has been informed that some CSBs focus entirely on Key Performance Parameters, to the exclusion of proposed technical configuration changes that may also drive program costs. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take appropriate steps to ensure that CSBs meet at least once a year to consider the full range 

of proposed changes to program requirements or system configuration for each MDAP, as required by section 814. In addition, the 

committee directs GAO to review DOD’s use of CSBs in fiscal year 

2010 and to report to the committee by no later than 180 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act on the number of times on 

which CSBs met with regard to each MDAP and the extent to 

which such CSBs considered the full range of issues required by 

the statute. 

Contractor past performance information 

Section 1091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 

(Public Law 103–355) requires federal agencies to collect and maintain information on contractor past performance for consideration 

in future contract award decisions. The Department of Defense 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
171 

(DOD) has implemented this requirement through the Contractor 

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). 

In 2008, the DOD Inspector General reviewed the Department’s 

processes for collecting and maintaining contractor past performance information and reported that CPARS did not include required past performance information. In particular, the Inspector 

General found that the CPARS database did not include up-to-date 

performance information for most DOD contracts and that most of 

the reports included in the database lacked the kind of information 

needed by contracting officials to make informed decisions related 

to market research, contract awards, and other acquisition matters. 

Senior DOD officials concurred in the Inspector General’s findings and agreed to promulgated new guidance designed to address 

the problem. 

Because the evaluation of contractor past performance information continues to play a critical role in contract award decisions, 

the committee directs the Inspector General to conduct a follow-up 

review to determine whether the new guidance has resulted in better compliance and a more complete and useful database of contractor past performance information. 

Organizational conflicts of interest 

Section 207 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) required the Secretary of Defense to tighten existing requirements for organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) by 

contractors in major defense acquisition programs (MDAP). At a 

minimum, the new regulations are required to: (1) ensure that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) receives advice on systems architecture and systems engineering (SETA) matters with respect to 

MDAPs from sources independent of the prime contractor; and (2) 

ensure that each contract for the performance of SETA functions 

for an MDAP contains a provision prohibiting the contractor from 

participating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the 

development or construction of a weapon system under the MDAP, 

subject to ‘‘such limited exceptions . . . as may be necessary to ensure that the Department of Defense has continued access to advice 

on systems architecture and systems engineering matters from 

highly-qualified contractors with domain experience and expertise, 

while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that are objective and unbiased.’’ 

On April 22, 2010, the Department of Defense published a proposed amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to address the requirements of section 207, 

as well as other, broader OCI issues. The proposed DFARS rule 

states that ‘‘generally, the preferred method to resolve an organizational conflict of interest is mitigation.’’ The proposed rule requires 

that a contract for the performance of SETA functions for an 

MDAP prohibit the contractor from participating as a contractor or 

a major subcontractor in the development or construction of a 

weapon system under the MDAP, as required by section 207, unless ‘‘the contractor is highly qualified with domain experience and 

expertise and the organizational conflict of interest will be adequately resolved’’ through mitigation. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
172 

The exception provided by the proposed DFARS rule appears to 

be broader in scope than the exception authorized by the statute. 

Moreover, when this language is taken in conjunction with the 

rule’s overall preference for mitigation over avoidance, the rule 

may be read to reverse the statutory presumption that SETA contractors may be permitted to participate in development and production only in exceptional cases. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review this issue and ensure that the final 

DFARS rule is consistent with the requirements of the statute. 

In addition, the committee notes that several DOD components 

have already issued guidance that is tighter than, but not inconsistent with, the proposed DFARS rule. The committee believes 

that the final DFARS rule should make it clear that it is not intended to override tighter standards that have been issued by DOD 

components. 

Planning and implementation for hiring civilian employees 

to replace contractor employees 

In 2009, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to hire up to 

30,000 new civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

over a 5 year period, to replace contractor employees and restore 

needed expertise and authority to the DOD workforce. The committee endorses this initiative, which is needed to overcome past 

funding decisions that precluded trade-offs between civilian employees and contractor employees, and impeded the Department’s 

efforts to achieve a rational balance between the two workforces. 

The committee believes that the Department’s hiring efforts 

should focus on individuals with critical skill sets that are most 

needed by the Department. At a time when DOD desperately needs 

to rebuild its intellectual capital in critical mission areas, the effort 

and expense required to hire new civilian employees to replace contractor employees should not be wasted on the conversion of routine commercial functions that can readily be performed by contractors. 

In the acquisition workforce, the Department has a demonstrated 

need for more civilian employees to serve as contracting officials, 

system engineers, development planners, software engineers, cost 

estimators, and developmental testers. Outside the acquisition 

workforce, the Department has a demonstrated need for a wide 

range of highly skilled professionals, including accountants, auditors, financial management and business process experts, information technology experts, and human resources professionals. 

Section 115b of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary to prepare an annual strategic workforce plan to shape and 

improve the Department’s civilian employee workforce. In addition, 

section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, requires the secretaries of the military departments and the heads of the defense 

agencies to develop inventories of functions and missions performed 

by contractors and to review those inventories to identify functions 

that would more appropriately be performed by DOD employees. 

The committee urges the Department to take advantage of the rational planning processes developed in response to these requirements to focus the hiring effort undertaken pursuant to the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
173 

retary’s plans on individuals with the skills and expertise most 

needed by the Department. 

Profit or fee for undefinitized contract actions 

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to issue guidance, with detailed implementation instructions, to ensure the enforcement of requirements applicable to 

undefinitized contract actions (UCAs), including regulatory limitations on profits or fees. The conference report explained the purpose of the new guidance as follows: 

‘‘[T]he Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) states that when the final price of a UCA 

is negotiated after a substantial portion of the required 

performance has been completed, the negotiated profit rate 

should reflect any reduced cost risk to the contractor for 

costs incurred during contract performance before negotiation of the final price. Section 215.404–71–3(d)(2) of the 

DFARS states: ‘When costs have been incurred prior to 

definitization, generally regard the contract type risk to be 

in the low end of the designated range. If a substantial 

portion of the costs have been incurred prior to 

definitization, the contracting officer may assign a value as 

low as 0 percent, regardless of contract type.’ However, 

[the Government Accountability Office (GAO)] found no 

evidence that DOD contracting officers have been observing these requirements in the negotiation of contract fees. 

The conferees expect the guidance issued pursuant to this 

section to include procedures for ensuring compliance with 

these and other requirements regarding UCAs.’’ 

In January 2010, GAO reviewed DOD’s implementation of section 809. Although DOD has taken a number of steps to enhance 

its oversight of UCAs, GAO reported that even after the implementation of section 809, DOD officials failed to give the required consideration to reduced cost risk in determining contractor profits or 

fees. In those cases where DOD officials documented their profit 

determinations, GAO found that ‘‘the contract-type risk factors 

were skewed toward the middle and high end of the DFARS designated ranges, indicating higher risk for the contractors,’’ rather 

than the lower risk expected under the DFARS provision. As a result, it appears that DOD continues to pay excessive profits and 

fees on $18.0 billion in potential obligations for UCAs. 

The committee expects DOD to address this problem as recommended by GAO, by revising applicable regulations to provide 

specific guidance for how to develop, consider, and document assessments of cost risk for profit or fee determinations for all 

undefinitized contract actions. In addition, the committee directs 

the Department to revise the semi-annual reporting requirement 

under section 217.7405(a)(2) of the DFARS to include information 

on rates of profits and fees negotiated on all UCAs with an estimated value exceeding $5.0 million. The semiannual reports should 

include a justification for any case in which contracting officials assign a level of contract type risk that is not in the low end of the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
174 

designated range, as provided in section 215.404–71–3(d)(2) of the 

DFARS. 

Strategy of addressing national security issues related to 

rare earth materials in the defense supply chain 

Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on rare earth materials in the supply 

chain of the Department of Defense (DOD). The April 2010 GAO 

report found that: • ‘‘the use of rare earth materials is widespread in defense 

systems,’’ including precision-guided munitions, lasers, communication systems, radar systems, avionics, night vision equipment, and satellites; • ‘‘where rare earth materials are used in defense systems, 

the materials are responsible for the functionality of the component and would be hard to replace without losing performance’’; • ‘‘current capabilities to process rare earth metals into finished materials are limited mostly to Chinese sources’’ and increased vertical integration may ‘‘increase China’s total market 

power and dominance’’; • ‘‘rebuilding a U.S. rare earth supply chain may take up to 

15 years and is dependent on several factors, including securing capital investments in processing infrastructure, developing new technologies, and acquiring patents, which are currently held by international companies’’; and • ‘‘DOD has not yet identified departmentwide national security risks due to rare earth material dependencies’’ and has 

no comprehensive plan for addressing such risks. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to report to the congressional defense committees on national security issues related to rare earth 

materials in the defense supply chain by no later than March 15, 

2011. The Under Secretary’s report should address at a minimum: 

(1) steps that DOD has taken to identify and address national security risks due to the Department’s dependence on Chinese sources 

for rare earth materials; (2) steps that DOD plans to take within 

the next 2 years to identify and address such risks; (3) whether direct investment by the United States Government is needed to 

minimize national security risks associated with an interruption of 

supply; and (4) when the Department plans to have in place a comprehensive plan in place for addressing such risks. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(175) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Repeal of personnel limitations applicable to certain defense-wide organizations and revisions to limitation applicable to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 

901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal certain 

personnel limitations applicable to the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and other defense-wide organizations, as requested by the 

Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would eliminate personnel ceilings that are based on the Department’s organization 

more than 20 years ago. The Department’s legislative request 

states: ‘‘These changes are necessary to ensure that defense-wide 

support organizations are free from outdated personnel limits. It 

will remove the limits that do not address the 20 years of history 

within the Department of Defense and changes within the global 

military and political environment.’’ 

Reorganization of Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

carry out reduction required by law in number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend certain provisions of title 10, United States Code, to implement 

changes in the organizational structure of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) recommended by the Department of Defense (DOD) in response to the requirement of section 906 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) to eliminate non-statutory Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense (DUSD) positions by the end of 2010. 

The provision would: (1) redesignate certain Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed (PAS) officials as assistant secretaries of 

defense; (2) modify the order of precedence of officials within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense; (3) authorize the Secretary to 

add a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force 

Management; (4) create a separate statutory provision establishing 

the position of Deputy Chief Management Officer for DOD; (5) 

modify the titles of certain non-PAS officials to conform to the new 

organization; (6) create a separate statutory provision for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Manufacturing and 

Industrial Base Policy; (7) authorize DOD to retain up to five nonstatutory DUSDs for a limited period of time; and (8) make other 

technical and conforming changes. 

As explained in the Department’s legislative request, ‘‘These 

changes will provide a logical construction for the organization of 

the most senior officials within OSD by: (1) removing the wide variVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
176 

ance in the status and stature of officials with the same title, and 

(2) providing the same title to officials of generally equal status 

and stature.’’ 

Revision of structure and functions of the Reserve Forces 

Policy Board (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 10301 and 113 of title 10, United States Code, to revise the 

functions and structure of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. The 

Board would serve as an independent adviser to the Secretary of 

Defense on strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve 

and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The provision would reduce the membership of 

the Reserve Forces Policy Board from 24 members to 20 members, 

and would authorize retired and enlisted members and members 

from outside the Department of Defense to serve as members of the 

board. 

Subtitle B—Space Activities 

Limitation on use of funds for costs of terminating contracts 

under the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Program (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from using any funds available for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS) from being used to pay termination costs until there is 

an agreement that any termination costs will be equally divided between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

While the committee does not support termination of the contract 

and believes that terminating the NPOESS contract would result 

in the loss of a significant amount of time and money that has been 

invested in this program, any such decision, if made, should be 

made, funded, and executed jointly by the DOD and the DOC. 

Limitation on use of funds for purchasing Global Positioning System user equipment (sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) from being 

used to purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) user equipment 

unless such equipment is capable of receiving the military code or 

‘‘M’’ code. The DOD has made significant investments to deploying 

GPS satellites with M code capability to allow improved accessibility to GPS satellites and increase anti-jam and anti-spoof capabilities. The new M code will provide a more robust signal, which 

will in turn improve signal acquisition, particularly where it is difficult to acquire a signal currently. The new M code will also provide better security in terms of exclusivity, authentication, and confidentiality, along with streamlined key distribution. The committee believes that use of this new signal will greatly improve war 

fighting capabilities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
177 

The provision includes authority to waive the requirement and 

would not apply to items such as cars and other commercial vehicles that come equipped with GPS receiver capability. 

Plan for integration of space-based nuclear detection sensors (sec. 913) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to develop a plan for space-based nuclear detection sensors. The plan would set forth an integration plan for the 

sensors and lay out a path to comply with section 1065 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181). 

The provision would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 

spending more than 75 percent of the funds available for the 

Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) from being obligated until 

the plan is submitted. 

Preservation of the solid rocket motor industrial base (sec. 

914) 

The committee recommends a provision that would set forth the 

sense of the Senate with respect to the impact of the cancellation 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Constellation program. The sense of the Senate is specifically focused on the impact cancellation of Ares I, Ares V, or their solid 

rocket motor alternatives or derivatives, and all supporting elements would have on the solid rocket industrial base, including the 

vendor and supplier base would have on the programs of the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would also include a 

number of findings with respect to the cancellation decision and 

the lack of discussion about the decision with the DOD. Finally, the 

provision would direct the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Administrator of NASA, to report on the impact of the 

cancellation of the Constellation program on DOD mission requirements. The report would be due to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Senate 

Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Appropriations, and the House of Representatives Committees on Energy 

and Commerce, and Appropriations, 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Implementation plan to sustain solid rocket motor industrial base (sec. 915) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to develop an implementation plan to sustain 

the solid rocket motor industrial base. Section 1078 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop recommendations 

to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base. This provision 

would utilize the recommendations from that report as the foundation to develop an implementation plan and to identify the necessary funding to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
178 

The committee is concerned that with the recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decisions, the overhead 

costs associated with the solid rocket motor industrial base will 

shift exclusively to the Department of Defense (DOD). Until NASA 

determines the nature of its next-generation launch vehicle, DOD 

will be the primary purchaser of solid rocket motors. The committee urges the DOD to take the actions necessary to sustain both 

the engineering and manufacturing capabilities needed for future 

solid rocket motor requirements and to ensure that the industrial 

base is appropriately sized to meet these requirements. 

Review and plan on sustainment of liquid rocket propulsion 

systems industrial base (sec. 916) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to review 

and develop a plan to sustain the liquid rocket propulsion system 

industrial base. The review would include actions necessary to support current systems and sustain intellectual and engineering capacity to support next-generation systems and engines. The plan 

would be due by June 1, 2011. 

The committee is concerned that launch costs across the board 

are increasing as the need for new systems has decreased. It is essential that the U.S. maintain a domestic launch capability that 

can meet the mission assurance requirements of the Federal Government. 

Subtitle C—Intelligence Matters 

Permanent authority for Secretary of Defense to engage in 

commercial activities as security for intelligence collection activities (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide permanent authority for the Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities as security for intelligence collection activities. 

This authority has been provided to the Secretary since 1991 but 

always on a temporary basis with a sunset date. The administration requested a permanent grant of authority, and the committee 

agrees that this is reasonable. 

Modification of attendees at proceedings of Intelligence, 

Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Integration Council 

(sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the secretary of each military department to designate an officer or employee to attend the meetings of the Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (ISR) Integration Council. The provision also would 

delete the terms Joint Military Intelligence Program and Tactical 

Intelligence and Related Activities Program from the statute that 

established the ISR Integration Council and replace it with the 

term Military Intelligence Program. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
179 

Report on Department of Defense interservice management 

and coordination of remotely-piloted aircraft support of 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (sec. 923) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of Defense produce a report consolidating data from 

the services and information on several Defense-wide activities that 

would address a number of issues regarding remotely-piloted aircraft systems and the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

capabilities they provide or are intended to provide to the Department. The Secretary would be required to report to the congressional defense committees within 150 days of enactment of this Act. 

Report on requirements fulfillment and personnel management relating to Air Force intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance provided by remotely-piloted aircraft (sec. 924) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of the Air Force produce a report to address a number of issues regarding the Air Force’s management of various aspects of remotely-piloted aircraft systems and the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that these systems provide. The Secretary would be required to report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle D—Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related 

Matters 

Continuous monitoring of Department of Defense information systems for cybersecurity (sec. 931) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement a set of information security 

measures and controls on Department of Defense information networks and systems, and to automate the monitoring of those controls. This process has been very successfully applied at the Department of State and the Department of Justice, and has been 

proposed as a far more cost-effective method of improving compliance and reporting under the Federal Information Security Management Act. 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense networks are far larger, more varied, and complex than those operated 

by the Department of State and the Department of Justice, and 

that there should not be a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach to continuous 

monitoring and dashboard representations of network status and 

vulnerability. At the same time, the committee is persuaded that 

the conceptual approach pioneered by the Departments of State 

and Justice, which are based on audit guidelines developed by the 

private sector and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is sound and will make a major contribution to cyber security in the Department of Defense. 

Strategy on computer software assurance (sec. 932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a strategy for securing the software and software applications for covered systems 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
180 

in the Department of Defense (DOD). This strategy must address 

the full life cycle of software-based applications and weapons systems, from development, acquisition, test and evaluation, certification and accreditation (C&A), and C&A renewals. The strategy 

must also address the challenge of remediation of legacy systems, 

and of monitoring and defending software applications as they are 

running against cyber attacks. 

The committee is informed that a large and growing percentage 

of successful cyber intrusions, attacks, and thefts have exploited 

vulnerabilities in software applications, especially custom applications. Some of these attacks are difficult or impossible to detect 

using packet-based intrusion detection and prevention systems 

based on known signatures. 

The committee understands that usually there are limited requirements, if any, in development contracts for ensuring security 

in the software code, and regulations permit manual sampling of 

code to check for vulnerabilities during evaluations and C&A processes. 

Congress addressed supply chain risk management in section 

254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417). However, section 254 focused on hardware, 

and, while DOD included software in its supply chain risk management strategy report, submitted in response to section 254 requirements, policy, regulations, and program planning for software assurance remain largely undeveloped. 

The committee emphasizes the importance of developing new 

technologies for the automated analysis of software code for 

vulnerabilities and for detecting attempted intrusions. It is not 

practical to manually examine all the lines of code in all of DOD’s 

critical information systems. Automated tools are commercially 

available today, but collectively they detected only 60 percent of the 

vulnerabilities purposefully inserted into code for tests conducted 

by the National Security Agency. Moreover, these tools only work 

for software for which the source code is available. It is much more 

difficult to analyze vulnerabilities without the source code—a very 

common situation. Commercial tools also exist for monitoring software applications as they are running in order to detect intrusions. 

Such capabilities appear to be a critical component of a comprehensive defense system. 

The committee understands that the cost and effort involved in 

correcting all discoverable vulnerabilities in all DOD software applications is prohibitive, and therefore agrees that DOD should 

focus on so-called covered systems. However, major intrusions and 

data thefts in the private sector have involved penetrations first of 

non-critical and unprotected ‘‘administrative’’ applications, which 

provided the access that enabled attacks on important and supposedly more secure applications. If a similar vulnerability exists 

in DOD, it will not be enough to secure only covered systems. 

Strategy for acquisition and oversight of Department of Defense cyber warfare capabilities (sec. 933) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop an acquisition process tailored to 

the unique and demanding requirements of cyber warfare. Military 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
181 

forces operating in cyberspace will require new or modified tools 

and capabilities almost constantly, and instantly, to keep pace with 

the speed at which change occurs in cyberspace. At the same time, 

it is necessary to ensure that there is an orderly, repeatable, and 

transparent process for generating and approving requirements, for 

developing and acquiring those new capabilities, and for reporting 

the use of such capabilities. Furthermore, due to the uncertainties 

in the effects of actions in cyberspace, the potentially serious consequences of operations in cyberspace, and the importance of precedents in the development of norms of behavior in cyberspace, it is 

also critical for the Department of Defense to conduct thorough 

testing of cyberspace capabilities at facilities that accurately replicate or emulate the operational environment in which those capabilities will be used. 

The committee is also concerned about possible adverse effects of 

dual-hatting the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), absent a well-defined 

cyber acquisition process. NSA has a very large acquisition organization. While that acquisition organization has been making 

progress in reforming its processes and improving the talent in its 

acquisition corps, NSA has a history that raises concerns about the 

lack of rigor and oversight of its operations. No other combatant 

command has a large acquisition organization in such an intimate 

relationship, other than U.S. Special Operations Command, which 

was purposely created to conduct systems acquisition. The committee believes it is necessary to ensure that self-perceived requirements do not emerge in U.S. Cyber Command and migrate under 

the radar screen of defense acquisition management processes directly to NSA for solutions. 

A large fraction of cyberspace tools, applications, and capabilities 

will be software based and classified. It has been difficult enough 

historically to maintain appropriate distinctions between genuine 

‘‘software maintenance’’ and the development of new capabilities in 

less highly classified and dynamic major systems. In this critically 

important and sensitive new mission area of cyber warfare, it is essential to be clear about who is responsible for developing new capabilities—and how that development and fielding is conducted. 

Report on the cyber warfare policy of the Department of Defense (sec. 934) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by March 1, 2011, on 

the cyber policy of the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee’s extensive examination of DOD’s proposal to establish U.S. 

Cyber Command as a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic 

Command revealed that there are substantial and worrisome gaps 

in the policy and guidelines needed to govern U.S. military operations in cyberspace. Senior DOD officials testified to this effect, 

and assured the committee that the Secretary of Defense understands this situation very well and intends to address the outstanding issues vigorously. The committee was informed that the 

Secretary intends to have answers to some of the major policy 

questions by the end of this calendar year. The committee places 

great importance on the fulfillment of this commitment. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
182 

The committee appreciates the fact that the new administration 

inherited these unresolved cyber policy issues and that it may not 

be reasonable to expect that all of the difficult and complex issues 

can be resolved by March 1, 2011. Below is an extensive but not 

exhaustive list of the policy issues that were discussed extensively 

with DOD officials during the committee’s cyber review. If the Secretary’s policy review process is unable to address or resolve any 

of these matters, or others that the Secretary deems significant, 

the committee requests that the Secretary note them, and explain 

why they need to be deferred or remain unresolved, and when he 

expects some resolution. 

The issues referred to above are these: 

1. The development of a declaratory deterrence posture for 

cyberspace, including the relationship between military operations in cyberspace and kinetic operations. The committee believes that this deterrence posture needs to consider the current vulnerability of the U.S. economy and government institutions to attack, the relatively lower vulnerability of potential 

adversaries, and the advantage currently enjoyed by the offense in cyberwarfare; 

2. The necessity of preserving the President’s freedom of action in crises and confrontations involving nations which may 

pose a manageable conventional threat to the United States 

but which in theory could pose a serious threat to the U.S. 

economy, government, or military through cyber attacks; 

3. How deterrence or effective retaliation can be achieved in 

light of attribution limitations; 

4. To the extent that deterrence depends upon demonstrated 

capabilities or at least declarations about capabilities and retaliatory plans, how and when the Department intends to declassify information about U.S. cyber capabilities and plans or 

to demonstrate capabilities; 

5. How to maintain control of or manage escalation in 

cyberwarfare, through, for example, such measures as refraining from attacking certain targets (such as command and control and critical infrastructure); 

6. The rules of engagement for commanders at various command echelons for responding to threats to operational missions and in normal peacetime operating environments, including for situations in which the immediate sources of an attack 

are computers based in the United States; 

7. How the administration will evaluate the risks and consequences attendant to penetrations of foreign networks for intelligence gathering in situations where the discovery of the 

penetration could cause the targeted nation to interpret the 

penetration as a serious hostile act; 

8. How DOD shall keep Congress fully informed of significant cyberspace accesses acquired for any purpose that could 

serve as preparation of the environment for military action; 

9. The potential benefit of engaging allies in common approaches to cyberspace deterrence, mutual and collective defense, and working to establish norms of acceptable behavior 

in cyberspace; 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
183 

10. The issue of third-party sovereignty to determine what to 

do when the U.S. military is attacked, or U.S. military operations and forces are at risk in some other respect, by actions 

taking place on or through computers or other infrastructure 

located in a neutral third country. 

11. The issue of the legality of transporting cyber ‘‘weapons’’ 

across the Internet through infrastructure owned and/or located in neutral third countries without obtaining the equivalent of ‘‘overflight rights.’’ 

12. The definition or the parameters of what would constitute an act of war in cyberspace, and how the laws of war 

should be applied to military operations in cyberspace; and 

13. What constitutes use of force in cyberspace for the purpose of complying with the War Powers Act (Public Law 93– 

148). 

Reports on Department of Defense progress in defending 

the Department and the defense industrial base from 

cyber events (sec. 935) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide annual reports that assess whether 

the Department is improving its ability to defend Department of 

Defense networks and information systems and those of the defense industrial base against cyber attacks and intrusions. The first 

such report would be required to provide a baseline and metrics for 

measuring performance against an evolving threat, including categorizing the types of attacks and the vulnerabilities that were exploited. These reports would also disclose what information was 

lost and other impacts on the Department. The reports also would 

provide a net assessment of the offensive and defensive capabilities 

of the United States as compared to potential adversaries and 

other nations with advanced cyber warfare capabilities, along with 

a comparison of relative dependence on the Internet. 

This reporting requirement would expire in 2015. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Report on organizational structure and policy guidance of 

the Department of Defense regarding information operations (sec. 951) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) organizational structure and policy guidance relating 

to information operations (IO) activities, which is currently defined 

by the Department to include electronic warfare, computer network 

operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security. This review shall include, but not be limited to, a 

review of: (1) the appropriate location within the Department of the 

lead official responsible for IO, including the designation of a principal staff assistant to the Secretary of Defense for IO; (2) responsibilities for developing and overseeing DOD IO policy and integration activities; (3) responsibilities for DOD oversight and planning, 

execution, and related policy guidance; (4) responsibilities for intraDOD and inter-governmental coordination and de-confliction activiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
184 

ties for all DOD IO activities; (5) the roles and responsibilities of 

the military departments, U.S. Special Operations Command, and 

functional and geographic combatant commands in the development and implementation of IO; (6) the roles and responsibilities 

of the defense intelligence agencies for support to IO activities; (7) 

the appropriate role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; (8) related capabilities to include public affairs, civilmilitary operations, defense support to public diplomacy, and intelligence support; (9) the appropriate policy and implementation 

management structure for the computer network operations component of IO activities; and (10) the use and oversight of contractors 

in IO development and implementation. Following this review, the 

Secretary shall promulgate a new DOD Directive on IO. 

A report on the Secretary’s review shall be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The committee provides additional guidance related to this provision in the classified annex. 

The committee remains concerned about the Department’s ability 

to oversee adequately and manage appropriately the large sums of 

money flowing into a variety of information operations programs. 

The committee believes this internal oversight failure is a result of 

the roles and responsibilities for IO being too fragmented across organizations within the Department and that too much of the policy 

development and oversight for IO programs has migrated into the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)). 

Further, the committee believes the review also needs to address 

the extent to which it is appropriate for USD(I) to be given the responsibility for the development and implementation of IO programs. Further, as a general rule, the committee believes intelligence should inform policy and the Department’s current organizational arrangement is not consistent with this widely accepted 

doctrine. 

The committee is also concerned that the establishment of U.S. 

Cyber Command and the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Cyber and Space Policy calls into question the continued incorporation of computer network operations in the Department’s definition of Information Operations, which asserts that all 

elements under the Information Operations label will be managed 

and overseen in a fully integrated manner. 

Report on the organizational structures of the geographic 

combatant commands headquarters (sec. 952) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives on effectiveness of the interagency-oriented geographic combatant command headquarters’ organizational 

structure. The report shall include, but not be limited to: (1) a description of the organizational model used by each of the geographic combatant commands (GCC); (2) an assessment of the benefits and limitations of each organizational model in meeting broadranging military missions; (3) a description and assessment of the 

role and contribution of other Federal departments and agencies 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
185 

within each organization model, including any plans to expand 

interagency participation in the future; (4) a description of any lessons learned from the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and 

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) organizational structures, to include an assessment of the value-added, if any, of the position of 

civilian deputy to the commander at SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM; 

and (5) any other matters the Secretary and Chairman may deem 

appropriate. The report should be provided to the aforementioned 

committees no later than 90 days from the enactment of this Act. 

In September 2007, SOUTHCOM, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, began the transformation to a joint, interagency, 

regional security command. As part of this transformation process, 

SOUTHCOM altered its organizational structure and functioning. 

The new enterprise directorate-based organization model was a 

transition from the traditional Joint Staffing or J-code organizational model used by most of the combatant commands and the 

Joint Staff. Since the SOUTHCOM reorganization, AFRICOM was 

established and organized in a similar enterprise directorate-based 

manner and U.S. European Command is reportedly reviewing the 

appropriateness of a comparable reorganization. 

The committee viewed favorably the effort by SOUTHCOM and 

AFRICOM to explore methods to synchronize more effectively the 

soft power elements of national security and to respond more effectively and rapidly to regional issues and transnational threats. In 

February 2009, however, the Government Accountability Office reported that AFRICOM was having difficulty in integrating interagency personnel into its structure. Moreover, the committee is 

aware of a recent decision by the SOUTHCOM commander to revert to the former and more traditional J-code organizational structure during the U.S. Government’s response to the January 12, 

2010, earthquake in Haiti. This decision was reportedly due to, at 

least in part, command and control and communications shortcomings of the enterprise directorate-based command structure. 

The committee notes that the Department had previously indicated 

that these issues had been addressed, most notably in an October 

17, 2008, report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The committee remains open 

to the possibility of more integrated interagency-oriented GCCs, 

but is interested in better understanding the benefits and limitations of the enterprise directorate-based model. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(187) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in Division A of 

this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Repeal of requirement for annual joint report from Office of 

Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office on scoring of outlays in defense budget function 

(sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

226 of title 10, United States Code. That section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide Congress 

with a joint report, no later than April 1 of each year, containing 

an agreed-upon resolution of all differences between the technical 

assumptions used by OMB and CBO in preparing the estimates 

with respect to all accounts in function 050 (national defense) for 

the budget to be submitted to Congress in the following year. If the 

two Directors are unable to agree upon any technical assumption, 

the report reflects the use of averages of the relevant account rates 

used by the two offices. 

This report is unnecessary because it largely duplicates information already provided in the President’s Budget. Furthermore, 

OMB and CBO already work together to reconcile outlay estimates 

and regularly alert Congress to where outlay estimates differ. 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for 

certain Navy mess operations (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend section 1014 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), which authorizes 

the Department of Defense to fund from Navy operations and 

maintenance accounts the cost of meals on United States naval and 

naval auxiliary vessels for non-military personnel, through September 30, 2015, and would establish an annual limit of no more 

than $1.0 million. 

In fiscal year 2009, the Department expended approximately 

$400,000 for meals sold to authorized personnel during U.S. civilmilitary operations, including Continuing Promise 2008/2009, AfriVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
188 

can Partnership Station 2009, and Pacific Partnership Station 

2009. The committee expects the Department’s expenditures under 

this authority will increase in fiscal year 2010 due to Operation 

Unified Response/Joint Task Force-Haiti. 

The committee recognizes the value of recent civil-military operations and humanitarian relief missions—executed by the USNS 

Comfort, USNS Mercy, and other vessels—and acknowledges the 

importance of building partnerships and fostering the positive 

image of America worldwide. The committee also understands that 

the participation of non-governmental organizations and host and 

partner nations is vital to the successful execution of these missions. 

Subtitle C—Counterdrug Matters 

Notice to Congress on military construction projects for facilities of foreign law enforcement agencies for counterdrug activities (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a notification of the decision to construct, repair, or modify 

a facility of a foreign law enforcement agency for the purpose of 

supporting said agencies’ counterdrug activities. This provision 

would enhance the existing notification and wait requirement 

under section 1004(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1991, as amended (Public Law 101–510). 

In fiscal year 2009, the Department initiated a number of military construction projects under its support to foreign law enforcement agencies authority (section 1004 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 

1991, as amended), including more than $24.0 million for the construction of the regional law enforcement center in Kandahar, Afghanistan, $1.3 million for the construction of a national narcotics 

bureau training facility in Indonesia, $2.7 million for an operations 

center, barracks, and pier in Costa Rica, $0.8 million for construction of an access road for a counter-narcotics unit in Cameroon, 

and $1.0 million for the renovation of the ministry of interior and 

state intelligence service buildings in Albania. The congressional 

defense committees, under current law, are only provided an annual report of these efforts if Congress renews section 1022(a) of 

the Floyd D. Spence NDAA for Fiscal Year 2001, as amended (Public Law 106–398). This provision would provide improved visibility 

on the support to foreign law enforcement agencies provided by the 

Department. The committee, however, also extends section 1022(a) 

in another section of this Act. 

Extension and expansion of support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

fiscal year the duration of authority for assistance under section 

1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended, extend the limitation 

on the maximum amount of support, and expand the list of countries that could qualify for assistance under section 1033 to the 

Government of Nicaragua. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
189 

The committee did not look favorably upon the Department’s request to increase the maximum amount of support authorized 

under this provision due to the Department’s underemployment of 

this authority for consecutive fiscal years. The committee is keen 

to understand the reasons for the Department’s continued under 

utilization of this important building partnership capacity authority, particularly given the addition of six countries in the last 3 

years. 

Extension and modification of joint task forces support to 

law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism 

activities (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

fiscal year the authority provided under section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), as amended, which expires at the end of fiscal year 2010, through fiscal year 2011. The provision would also 

limit the availability of this authority for any fiscal year after 2010 

until the Secretary of Defense makes a determination that a significant connection exists between an entity engaged in illegal drug 

trafficking and the foreign terrorist organization concerned before 

utilizing this authority and would require the Secretary of Defense 

to provide a report to Congress as to whether each existing joint 

task force providing support under section 1022 of the NDAA for 

Fiscal Year 2004, as amended, as of September 30, 2010, is providing such support in a manner consistent with this new requirement. 

Extension of numerical limitation on assignment of United 

States personnel in Colombia (sec. 1024) 

The committee recommends a provision that extends section 

1021(c) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as amended, for 1 

fiscal year the limitation on the number of U.S. military and federally funded civilian contractor personnel in the Republic of Colombia through fiscal year 2011. 

Reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign 

counter-drug activities (sec. 1025) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 1 

year, the reporting requirement on expenditures to support foreign 

counterdrug activities under section 1022(a) of the Floyd D. Spence 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 

Law 106–398), as amended. 

Subtitle D—Homeland Defense and Civil Support 

Limitation on deactivation of existing Consequence Management Response Forces (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

deactivation or disestablishment of any Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive (CBRNE) Consequence 

Management Response Force (CCMRF) established as of October 1, 

2009, until 90 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies that 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
190 

there exists within the Armed Forces an alternative CBRNE consequence management response capability that is at least as capable as 2 CCMRFs. The provision would also require a report by the 

Secretary of Defense on the plans of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to establish Homeland Response Forces for domestic emergency response to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. 

The committee is concerned that DOD is planning to disestablish 

an existing CCMRF, and it plans not to establish a previously 

planned third CCMRF on October 1, 2010. Instead, DOD plans to 

establish 10 Homeland Response Forces (HRF) in the National 

Guard, and locate 1 HRF in each of the 10 Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Regions, under the control of the Governor in 

the state where they are located. The committee does not believe 

it is prudent to eliminate the existing DOD consequence management capability—the second CCMRF—unless and until there is an 

equal or better capability in place. 

Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the planned HRFs 

may not be able to provide the same level of capability as the 

CCMRFs, since they would be only a fraction of the size of a 

CCMRF. Even if multiple HRFs were to join in response to a largescale incident, which would be difficult given their planned regional 

dispersal, they would not provide nearly the capability of a single 

CCMRF. 

Additionally, by placing the HRFs in the National Guard under 

the control of Governors, DOD would be removing these units from 

the direction and control of DOD and the Federal Government. The 

mission of providing defense support to civil authorities in response 

to a disaster is a Federal responsibility, and it is not apparent that 

the planned HRFs will be able to provide the same form of coordinated, planned, and organized response that now exists with the 

CCMRFs. 

Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for 

domestic emergency assistance (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2557 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic 

emergency assistance purposes. Under section 2557, the Secretary 

already has the authority to make such supplies available for humanitarian relief and homeless veterans’ assistance. This provision 

would expand the purposes for which such supplies could be made 

available to include domestic emergency assistance. It would also 

require that the distribution of such supplies for domestic emergency assistance purposes shall be coordinated with the Secretary 

of Homeland Security. 

Sale of surplus military equipment to State and local homeland security and emergency management agencies (sec. 

1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2576 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the State and 

local agencies to which the Secretary of Defense may sell surplus 

military equipment, to include homeland security and emergency 

management agencies. Under section 2576, the Secretary already 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
191 

has the authority to sell surplus military equipment to State and 

local law enforcement and firefighting agencies. The provision 

would also expand the surplus equipment that the Secretary may 

sell to State or local agencies to include personal protective equipment and other appropriate equipment. 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

National Guard support to secure the southern land border 

of the United States (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to deploy not fewer than 6,000 National 

Guard personnel to perform operations and missions along the 

southern land border of the United States for the purposes of assisting the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in securing such 

border. 

Prohibition on infringing on the individual right to lawfully 

acquire, possess, own, carry, and otherwise use privately owned firearms, ammunition, and other weapons 

(sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from regulating the otherwise lawful acquisition, possession, ownership, carrying, or other use of privatelyowned firearms on property that is not a Department of Defense 

installation and is not any other property that is owned or operated 

by the Department of Defense, subject to specified exceptions. The 

provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

comprehensive review of the legal and policy issues regarding the 

regulation of privately-owned firearms off of a military installation, 

and submit his findings and recommendations to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

Extension of limitation on use of funds for the transfer or 

release of individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2011, the provisions of section 1041 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2454). As a result, the provision would extend through the end of 2011 the prohibition in that section on the 

use of funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to release any detainee at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, into the United States, its territories, or possessions. It 

would also extend through the end of 2011 the prohibition in that 

section on the use of DOD funds for the transfer of any Guantanamo detainee into the United States until 45 days after the President submits a detailed, comprehensive plan for the disposition of 

any such detainee. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
192 

Limitation on transfer of detainees from United States 

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain countries (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit for 

1 year the use of Department of Defense funds to transfer individuals held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to countries 

where Al Qaeda has an active presence, specifically Afghanistan, 

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen. 

Clarification of right to plead guilty in trial of capital offense by military commission (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

procedures for guilty pleas in the trial of capital cases by military 

commissions. The amendment would provide that a sentence of 

death may only be imposed by a unanimous vote of all members 

of a military commission concurring in the sentence. 

Fiscal year 2011 administration and report on the Troops-toTeachers Program (sec. 1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to administer and fund the Troops-to-Teachers 

Program during fiscal year 2011. The provision would also require 

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Education to report 

to Congress on the history, administration, and effectiveness of the 

Troops-to-Teachers Program and the rationale for the proposed 

transfer of the program from the Department of Education to the 

Department of Defense and describe any proposed modifications to 

the program if transferred. 

Military impacts of renewable energy development projects 

and other energy projects (sec. 1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive strategy for addressing military impacts of renewable energy projects and other 

energy projects, with the objective of ensuring that the robust development of renewable energy sources and the expansion of the 

commercial electrical grid may move forward in the United States, 

while minimizing or mitigating any adverse impacts on military operations and readiness. 

Public availability of Department of Defense reports required by law (sec. 1048) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that Department of Defense (DOD) 

reports to Congress are made available to the public, upon request. 

This requirement would not apply to reports that contain classified 

information, proprietary information, or other information that is 

exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information 

Act (section 522 of title 5, United States Code). DOD could comply 

with the requirements of this section by posting the covered reports 

on a publicly-accessible website. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
193 

Development of criteria and methodology for determining 

the safety and security of nuclear weapons (sec. 1049) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense, acting through 

the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) to develop high level criteria 

for determining the appropriate baseline for the safety and security 

of nuclear weapons and a methodology for determining the level of 

safety and security for each type of nuclear weapon. A report setting forth the criteria and methodology would be due no later than 

March 1, 2011. Ensuring that the nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe and secure are essential elements to maintaining a nuclear deterrent. 

The committee supports improvements to the nuclear weapons 

stockpile to ensure that in addition to being reliable the stockpile 

remains safe and secure. As the NWC begins its review of the safety and security of the stockpile, and the various options and possibilities to improve safety and security, the NWC should develop a 

baseline requirement for safety and security. This baseline would 

be the minimum requirement for safety and security across the nuclear weapons stockpile. This baseline should be achieved by each 

weapon type in the stockpile that will go through a life extension 

program. Developing a baseline for safety and security will ensure 

that there is a clear understanding of the threat environment in 

which the nuclear system will exist. Threats to nuclear weapons 

have changed significantly and improving the safety and security 

of the stockpile should be achieved wherever feasible. 

The safety and security baseline would then be applied to each 

warhead and a determination made as to whether the baseline is 

or is not adequate or appropriate for the particular type of weapon, 

given the environment in which it is deployed, stored, and transported, as well as the inherent design of the weapon. This review 

would inform decisions with respect to a specific life extension program as to whether higher or possibly even lower levels of safety 

or security are merited. 

For instance, at one point a standard for the nuclear stockpile 

was to have fire resistant pits in all nuclear weapons. A decision 

as to whether or not a warhead type actually was designed to have 

a fire resistant pit was made based on the requirements for the 

warhead, including the environment in which the warhead would 

be stored and deployed. While exceptions to the standard were 

made in the past, exceptions to the new baseline safety and security criteria should be undertaken only with a clear understanding 

of the risk entailed by such a decision. 

As the scope of each new life extension program is determined, 

through the regular phase 6.x process, the committee believes that 

the safety and security criteria and a methodology for applying 

such criteria should be utilized. The methodology should include an 

opportunity for a broad, system life cycle cost benefit analysis, in 

addition to the cost of the Life Extension Program, which is currently part of the phase 6.2A process. The Department of Energy 

and the Department of Defense should each understand their respective costs and responsibilities for safety and security with respect to the life cycle of the system. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
194 

While the committee believes strongly that new threats and 

vulnerabilities should be addressed, the committee also believes 

that there should be standards established and a review as to how 

best to meet the standards and address the vulnerabilities even in 

a constrained budget environment. 

Subtitle F—Reports 

Report on potential renewable energy projects on military 

installations (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report setting forth an analysis 

of the potential environmental mission and other costs and benefits 

of a program to develop renewable energy generation projects on 

land within the borders of military installations. 

Report on use of domestically-produced alternative fuels or 

technologies by vehicles of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on actions that 

are being taken and could be taken by the Department of Defense 

to increase the use of alternative fuels in vehicles through the use 

of domestically-produced alternative fuels or technologies, including 

natural gas-based fuels. 

Report on role and utility of non-lethal weapons and technologies in counterinsurgency operations (sec. 1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state the 

sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should support 

the research, development, procurement, and fielding of non-lethal 

weapons and technologies designed to reduce military and civilian 

casualties, and improve military effectiveness, in counterinsurgency 

operations. The provision would also require the Department to 

submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report on the role 

and utility of non-lethal weapons and technologies in counterinsurgency operations. 

Report on United States efforts to defend against threats 

posed by the anti-access and area-denial capabilities of 

certain nation-states (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, not later than February 1, 2011, to submit 

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives a report on the Department’s efforts to defend 

against threats posed by the anti-access and area-denial capabilities of potentially hostile nation states. The report should include 

a description of any efforts by the Department to address findings 

in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report regarding advanced anti-access capabilities of foreign countries. The report 

should also include a discussion of current and future U.S. longVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
195 

range strike capabilities in the context of countering anti-access 

and area-denial strategies. 

The committee is concerned by the emergence of what the 2010 

Quadrennial Defense Review Report described as ‘‘anti-access strategies [that] seek to deny outside countries the ability to project 

power into a region, thereby allowing aggression or other destabilizing actions to be conducted by the anti-access power.’’ The committee believes it is essential that the U.S. Armed Forces maintain 

the capability to project power globally in light of growing anti-access challenges. The global presence and reach of U.S. forces protects U.S. interests, provides stability and reassures our many allies and security partners. The committee expects that as anti-access threats emerge, the United States will develop the necessary 

capabilities and security partnerships, to meet those threats. 

In this regard, the committee notes that the U.S. Navy and U.S. 

Air Force have initiated a dialogue addressing means by which our 

air and naval forces may more effectively work together in the face 

of anti-access challenges. The committee encourages the Chief of 

Naval Operations and Air Force Chief of Staff to work together 

with the purpose of overcoming emergent anti-access challenges. 

Additionally, the committee notes its displeasure that the Department of Defense has failed to submit the Annual Report on the 

Military and Security Developments involving the People’s Republic of China, as required by Section 1202 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) by the 

statutory deadline of March 1. The timely submission of this report 

is required by law, and the committee expects it to be presented 

to Congress as required. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

Technical, conforming, and updating amendments (sec. 

1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make certain 

technical and conforming amendments to title 10, United States 

Code, as recommended by the Department of Defense. 

Budget Items 

International crime and narcotics analytical tools 

The budget request included funding for international crime and 

narcotics analytical tools. The committee believes the funding increase included in the budget request is excessive. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $2.0 million. 

National Guard counterdrug programs 

The committee values the contribution that the National Guard 

makes to the national counterdrug effort. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $35.0 million for the National Guard 

Bureau’s counterdrug activities, along the northern and southern 

borders of the United States and in other high priority areas. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
196 

United States European Command’s counterdrug activities 

The committee notes that in recent fiscal years the Department 

of Defense provided counterdrug-related funding to United States 

European Command (EUCOM) on the basis of the burgeoning illegal narcotics trafficking trade in various parts of the African continent. United States Africa Command has been fully operationally 

capable for more than 2 years and the legacy counterdrug programs have been transferred. The committee recommends a series 

of five EUCOM specific reductions within the counterdrug budget 

request totaling $10.5 million. Specific project code reductions are 

reflected in the tables in title XIV. 

Moving forward, the committee directs the Department to adjust 

the funding levels for counterdrug related funding dedicated to 

EUCOM downward to reflect the change in the Unified Command 

Plan, which moved responsibility for the African continent into the 

area of responsibility for AFRICOM, and to reflect the significantly 

greater capacity of our European partners to combat illegal narcotics trafficking. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army Cooperative Arrangements 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense submitted 

a legislative proposal to Congress that would amend section 4544 

of title 10, United States Code, to remove the limitation of eight 

public-private partnerships, remove the sunset provision now set 

for September 30, 2014, and would allow multiyear contracting for 

greater than 5 years. 

The committee has not included this legislative proposal because 

the committee has yet to receive the analysis of the authority’s use 

as required by section 328 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 100–181). 

The committee notes that this analysis from the Department of 

Defense is essential before the committee would make an informed 

decision regarding the proposed legislative provision regarding the 

cooperative arrangements addressed in section 4544 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department 

of Defense 

Section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) requires the Department of Defense 

to develop a plan to achieve a full, unqualified audit of the Department of Defense (DOD) by September 30, 2017, and to submit 

semiannual reports to Congress on the Department’s progress toward this objective. The committee continues to believe that: (1) 

the requirement to achieve a clean audit opinion is a key step toward instilling much needed discipline into DOD’s financial systems; and (2) this effort should be closely tied to process and control improvements and business systems modernization efforts 

needed to improve the Department’s overall business and financial 

management. 

On May 10, 2010, DOD submitted the first semiannual report on 

its financial information and audit readiness (FIAR) plan pursuant 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
197 

to section 1003. This report documents the steps the Department 

has taken to establish milestones for improving the quality and 

timeliness of critical financial information, particularly in the areas 

of budgetary information and the existence and completeness of 

mission critical assets. The committee notes that the report includes specific interim milestones for achieving audit readiness in 

areas such as civilian pay, military pay, supply orders, contracts, 

and funds balance with Treasury only for the Department of the 

Navy. The committee expects the Department of the Army and the 

Department of the Air Force to provide comparable interim milestones in the next semiannual report, which is due November 15, 

2010. 

The report also provides interim milestones for addressing the 

existence and completeness of some categories of mission critical 

assets, but does not include a plan for achieving full audit readiness in this area. The committee expects the next semiannual report to include interim milestones for addressing the existence and 

completeness of all categories of mission critical assets. With regard to the valuation of these assets, the committee understands 

that the Department must consider the costs as well as the benefits 

of actions associated with achieving full audit readiness. The committee directs the Department to: (1) examine the costs and benefits of alternative approaches to the valuation of assets in consultation with other appropriate federal agencies; (2) include a progress 

report on this effort in the November 15, 2010, semiannual report; 

and (3) develop a business case supporting the selected approach 

and include a description of that business case in the May 15, 

2011, semiannual report. 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate 

In accordance with the requirements of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, this report includes a table listing additional funding for items requested by Senators, along with the intended recipient and intended location of performance identified in 

connection with each such request. This information is provided as 

an indication of the intention of the requesting Senator, not the intention of the committee. The information in this table will be posted on the website of the Senate Committee on Armed Services after 

the committee votes to report the bill. 

In addition, the committee has requested that each member requesting additional funding for items in this bill provide a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator’s immediate family 

has a pecuniary interest in the item, as required by Rule XLIV of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee has received the 

requested certification from each Senator requesting funding for 

items that is provided in this bill. These certifications will also be 

posted on the website of the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

after the committee votes to report the bill. 

By including a table of requested funding items in the report and 

posting Member certifications relative to such funding items on the 

committee website, the committee takes no position as to which of 

these items, if any, meet the definition of a congressionally directed 

spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit in Rule 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
198 

XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee directs 

the Department of Defense to use all applicable competitive, meritbased procedures in the award of any new contract, grant, or other 

agreement entered into with funds authorized to be appropriated 

by this bill. No provision in the bill or report shall be construed to 

direct funds to any particular location or entity unless the provision expressly so provides. 

Export Control Reform 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has invested 

a great deal of time and energy into reforming the U.S. Government’s regulations and procedures for exporting weapons and dualuse equipment and technology. In a recent speech the Secretary 

said ‘‘[the current export control] rules, organizations, and processes are not set up to deal effectively with those situations that 

could do us the most harm in the 21st Century—a terrorist group 

obtaining a critical component for a weapon of mass destruction, or 

a rogue state seeking advanced ballistic-missile parts. Most importantly, the current arrangement fails at the critical task of preventing harmful exports while facilitating useful ones.’’ The committee shares the Secretary’s conclusion about the current regime 

and is prepared to work with the Secretary, as necessary, to move 

forward on export control reform. 

Further, the committee supports the Secretary’s initiative to consolidate and improve the current export control regime. In addition 

to the Secretary’s conclusions, the committee believes it is critical 

that any reform effort (1) ensure that the U.S. export control system prohibits the transfer of critical military and dual-use technologies to countries, entities, and individuals that pose a real or 

potential threat to the United States; (2) protects the technological 

edge of the U.S. military; (3) cultivates a strong and innovative defense industrial base; (4) facilitates greater interoperability and cooperation with U.S. allies and foreign partners; and (5) ensures 

U.S. compliance with applicable international agreements. 

Special operations counter proliferation capabilities 

Counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and 

the ability to render safe intercepted WMD materials are critical 

responsibilities assigned to U.S. special operations forces (SOF). On 

March 16, 2010, the committee received testimony from the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in review 

of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2011 and the future-years defense program. In response to a question submitted 

for the record, the Commander of SOCOM indicated overseas contingency operations have negatively impacted the readiness of SOF 

to conduct countering WMD missions. According to his response, 

‘‘SOCOM has the capability to conduct counter proliferation activities but the capacity is limited. Ongoing global counterinsurgency 

operations have SOCOM counter proliferation forces conducting 

counter terrorism missions. The result is a reduction in the number 

of forces available for counter proliferation and reduced counter 

proliferation expertise due to decreased level of training.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Commander of SOCOM to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
199 

and House of Representatives, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, on SOCOM’s plan to reconstitute and sustain its 

WMD counter proliferation and render safe capabilities over the 

next 5 year period. The required report should include: (1) an analysis of the number of forces necessary to fulfill this mission requirement; (2) an analysis of current technology and capability 

gaps; (3) an investment plan to address any identified manpower 

and equipment shortages; and (4) any other matters the Commander of SOCOM deems appropriate. 

Special operations integration with U.S. Embassy Country 

Teams 

The committee recognizes the contributions of special operations 

personnel working with a number of U.S. Embassy Country Teams 

around the world. These personnel deploy at the request of the respective Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC) and Chief of 

Mission and play an important role in enhancing military, interagency, and host nation coordination and planning. 

The committee is aware of an ongoing country by country review 

by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the GCCs 

to ensure the requirement for special operations personnel in each 

country remains valid and appropriate. The committee supports 

this effort and encourages USSOCOM and the GCCs to conduct 

such a review on an annual basis in future years. Given the limited 

availability of special operations personnel and the dynamic nature 

of the threats to U.S. interests, the committee believes it is important that the allocation of special operations capabilities be continuously evaluated and allocated as appropriate. The committee is 

concerned that limited special operations capabilities may not be 

allocated to the highest priority countries in all cases. It is also important that the efforts of these special operations personnel remain closely coordinated and integrated with the country team 

with which they are working and properly aligned with the Chief 

of Mission’s Strategic Plan. 

The committee also supports efforts by USSOCOM and the GCCs 

to provide for longer and more repeat deployments of special operations personnel to priority countries. The committee believes that 

such an approach would help build the language, regional, and cultural expertise of individual special operators while also enabling 

more effective coordination with the respective country team and 

host nation. As highlighted in the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review, development of the skills mentioned above takes years of education and experience to achieve, but are critical to effective engagement with host nation military and civilian leaders. 

West Africa maritime security initiative 

The budget request includes $1,131.0 million for the Department 

of Defense’s drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, of which 

more than $200.0 million will fund training activities for U.S. counternarcotics partners around the globe. The committee directs the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and 

Global Threats and U.S. Africa Command to develop a West Africa 

maritime security initiative to include: (1) training in maritime domain awareness; (2) increasing the capacity of partners to patrol 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
200 

and enforce sovereignty in their own maritime space; and (3) improving the sustainability of their respective organizations with responsibility for maritime law enforcement. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(201) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Modification of certain authorities relating to personnel 

demonstration laboratories (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify authorities relating to personnel demonstration laboratories to: (1) 

clarify that the repeal of the National Security Personnel System 

by section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) has no effect on the direct hiring authority of the defense laboratories under section 1108 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417); (2) increase the number of positions for 

which such direct hiring authority may be used; and (3) correct certain other cross-references to ensure the full implementation of personnel flexibilities available under the laboratory demonstration 

program. 

Requirements for Department of Defense senior mentors 

(sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue appropriate policies and procedures to 

ensure that all senior mentors employed by the Department of Defense are: (1) hired as highly-qualified experts (HQE) under section 

9903 of title 5, United States Code; and (2) required to comply with 

all Federal laws and regulations applicable to personnel hired 

under this provision. 

In November and December 2009, USA Today reported that 

roughly 130 retired senior military officers were being paid to provide advice to the Department of Defense as ‘‘senior mentors,’’ 

while also working for defense contractors. The articles indicated 

that in the absence of any conflict of interest requirements some 

senior mentors may have used their access to advocate on behalf 

of their defense contractor clients. 

On April 1, 2010, the Secretary of Defense addressed this issue 

by requiring that all senior mentors be hired as HQEs. The Secretary’s memorandum states: 

‘‘[I]t is imperative that the experts we hire be subject to certain ethics laws and regulations that apply to Federal employees to avoid any perception of impropriety. To that end, it is 

the policy of the Department to hire all senior mentors as highly qualified experts (HQE) under 5 U.S.C. 9903 and require 

that they comply with all applicable Federal personnel and 

ethics laws and regulations. As a part-time employee, among 

other obligations, an HQE is required to file a financial disclosure report and may not divulge nonpublic information or participate in official matters that raise a financial conflict of interest. Holding senior mentors to such ethical standards proVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
202 

motes public trust and confidence in the integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.’’ 

The committee endorses the approach taken by the Secretary. 

The provision recommended by the committee would provide express statutory authority for this approach. 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the aggregate 

of basic and premium pay payable during calendar years 2009 

through 2011 to an employee who performs work in an overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of the Commander, 

United States Central Command, or an overseas location that was 

formerly in the area of responsibility of the Commander, United 

States Central Command but has been moved to the area of responsibility of the Commander, United States Africa Command in 

support of a contingency operation or an operation in response to 

a declared emergency. 

The total amount payable may not exceed the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 

3, United States Code. 

Extension and modification of enhanced Department of Defense appointment and compensation authority for personnel for care and treatment of wounded and injured 

members of the armed forces (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to designate any category of health care occupation within the Department of Defense as a shortage category occupation or critical need occupation, and would authorize the Secretary to recruit and appoint qualified individuals directly to those 

positions. The provision would also extend hiring authorities under 

this section from September 30, 2012, until December 31, 2015. 

Designation of Space and Missile Defense Technical Center 

of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/ 

Army Forces Strategic Command as a Department of Defense science and technology reinvention laboratory 

(sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Space and Missile Defense Technical Center of the U.S. Army 

Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command to be designated a Department of Defense (DOD) science and 

technology reinvention laboratory. This designation would allow 

more flexible personnel hiring and retention practices for scientists 

and engineers, as already authorized for 17 other DOD laboratory 

entities in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
203 

Treatment for certain employees paid saved or retained 

rates (sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1918(a)(3) of the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act of 2009 (5 U.S.C. 5304 note) in order to ensure that certain employees would not experience a reduction in take-home pay 

as a result of implementation of that Act. 

The committee notes that this is a technical change. 

Rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees 

performing work aboard or dockside in support of the 

nuclear aircraft carrier home-ported in Japan (sec. 

1107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

until September 30, 2014, a civilian employee of the Department 

of the Navy who is assigned to temporary duty to perform work 

aboard, or dockside in direct support of, the nuclear aircraft carrier 

that is home-ported in Japan to receive overtime pay. The provision 

would also require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on 

the use of this authority by no later than September 30, 2013, and 

would require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

to submit a report that addresses the Navy’s use of this authority 

and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of expanding this 

authority to include other federal employees. 

Item of Special Interest 

Action plan for employees on pay retention after conversion 

from National Security Personnel System to General 

Schedule 

Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) repealed the authority for the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and required the Department of Defense to convert all NSPS employees to other statutory 

pay systems by no later than January 1, 2012. The provision states 

that ‘‘No employee shall suffer any loss of or decrease in pay’’ because of the conversion. 

In accordance with this provision, a significant number of NSPS 

employees are likely to be converted to the General Schedule (GS) 

System at rates of pay in excess of the rates permissible under that 

system. Senior Department of Defense (DOD) officials have informed the committee that these individuals will be placed on ‘‘pay 

retention’’ under section 5363 of title 5, United States Code—meaning that they will receive reduced pay raises until their rates of pay 

return to levels authorized under the GS system. The committee is 

concerned that a significant number of highly-qualified DOD employees could be in the position of receiving lower pay raises than 

their colleagues for a period of years. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to develop an 

action plan to identify employees who are placed on pay retention 

as a result of the conversion from NSPS to the GS system and determine whether action is needed to ensure the fair treatment of 

such employees. In the case of individuals who received rapid pay 

increases under NSPS as a result of exceptional individual perVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
204 

formance, the action plan should include the identification of opportunities for training and advancement to positions which offer appropriate levels of pay. In the case of individuals serving in positions which were routinely compensated at higher levels under 

NSPS than in the GS system, the action plan should include a reassessment of GS classifications to ensure that the classifications 

appropriately reflect the responsibilities and talents of those serving in such positions. 

The committee further directs the Department to report to the 

committee not later than March 15 of 2011, 2012, and 2013 on the 

number of employees on pay retention as a result of the conversion 

from NSPS to the GS system and the actions that have been taken 

to ensure the fair treatment of such employees. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(205) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Training and Assistance 

Addition of allied government agencies to enhanced logistics interoperability authority (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

authority under section 127d of title 10, United States Code, for the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to provide logistic support, supplies, 

and services to allied forces to enhance their ability to operate with 

the logistical support systems of other military forces participating 

in combined operations with the United States. The provision 

would expand this authority to allow DOD to also provide logistic 

support, supplies, and services for these purposes to nonmilitary logistics, security, or similar agency of an allied government if doing 

so would directly benefit U.S. armed forces. Logistic support, supplies, and services may only be provided under this section with 

the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Such logistic support, 

supplies and services provided for the purposes of enhancing logistics interoperability may not exceed $5.0 million in value. 

Expansion of temporary authority to use acquisition and 

cross-servicing agreements to lend certain military 

equipment to certain foreign forces for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

temporary authority to use acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to loan certain personnel protection equipment to the military forces of partner nations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or a peacekeeping operation in which the United States is participating 

under the United Nations Charter or another international agreement, provided under section 1202 of the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 

364; 120 stat. 2412), as amended by section 1252 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181; 122 stat. 402) and section 1204 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417; 122 stat. 4622). 

The provision would expand this authority to allow this equipment to be loaned to partner military forces not only in theater but 

also prior to deployment in connection with the training of those 

forces participating in combined operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or 

a peacekeeping operation subject to this provision. The provision 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to notify the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations 

of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 15 days 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
206 

in advance of the provision of equipment in connection with the 

pre-deployment training of military forces under this authority. 

The committee recognizes the benefit of having the military 

forces of partner nations in combined operations train prior to their 

deployment on equipment similar to the equipment those forces 

will use upon arrival in theater. At the same time, the committee 

urges the Department to ensure that equipment loaned under this 

authority for training purposes is used only by forces to be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or an appropriate peacekeeping operation, and only in connection with training for that deployment. 

Authority to build the capacity of Yemen Ministry of Interior Counterterrorism forces (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to use up to $75.0 million of funds available for operation 

and maintenance during fiscal year 2011 to enhance the ability of 

the Yemen Ministry of Interior counterterrorism forces to conduct 

counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates. The authorized assistance may include 

equipment, supplies, and training. The provision would require the 

Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees 

and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate not 

less than 15 days prior to providing assistance under this section. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the ongoing efforts 

by the Department of Defense (DOD) to use ‘‘section 1206’’ train 

and equip assistance to build the capacity of various elements of 

the Yemeni military. However, the committee is concerned that too 

little assistance is being provided to the more capable and responsive Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) of the Government of Yemen’s 

Ministry of Interior. The Department has indicated that the ongoing ‘‘section 1206’’ train and equip efforts are critical, but the committee is concerned that the results of this effort will not be demonstrated in the near term. With this in mind, the committee believes it is critical to provide DOD with the authority to expand its 

train and equip efforts to include CTU. This assistance will help to 

ensure that DOD has a reliable partner to rely on for counterterrorism operations in this very sensitive area of the world and provide the Department with additional flexibility and agility in dealing with the threats emanating from Yemen. 

The committee notes explicitly in the provision that these funds 

shall be used to enhance the ability of CTU to conduct operations 

against ‘‘al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and its affiliates.’’ The 

committee notes that there have been public reports suggesting 

that the Government of Yemen may have used equipment provided 

by the United States to conduct operations against government opposition elements in both the North and South. The committee believes this would be a misuse of this assistance and any other security assistance provided to the Government of Yemen. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
207 

Authority to pay personnel expenses in connection with African cooperation (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to 

pay the travel, subsistence, and special compensation of officers 

and students and other expenses that such secretary considers necessary for African cooperation. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

Pakistan 

One-year extension and modification of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program and related authorities (sec. 

1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP), which enables commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan 

to fund humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects that provide immediate benefit to the local people. The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use up to $900.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, Overseas Contingency Operations, 

funding in fiscal year 2011 for CERP. Of this amount, $100.0 million would be available for CERP in Iraq and $800.0 million would 

be available for CERP in Afghanistan. The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

up to $50.0 million of CERP funds to the Department of State to 

support the Afghanistan National Solidarity Program if the Secretary determines that transferring these funds would enhance 

counterinsurgency or stability operations in Afghanistan. The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority of the Secretary 

of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to use 

funds provided for CERP to support the reintegration of Afghans 

who have renounced violence against the Government of Afghanistan. 

The committee understands that the budget request included $1.3 billion for CERP, comprised of $200.0 million for CERP in Iraq 

and $1.1 billion for CERP in Afghanistan. 

The committee has concerns with regard to the requested level of $200.0 million for CERP in Iraq, which is equal to the level of 

CERP in Iraq for fiscal year 2010. The committee believes that the 

requirement for CERP in Iraq should decline in fiscal year 2011 as 

the U.S. forces transition from a combat mission to an advise and 

assist role by September 2010, and as United States Forces-Iraq 

(USF–I) prepares to meet the December 31, 2011, deadline for the 

withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq in accordance with 

the United States-Iraq Security Agreement. The committee understands that the CERP level requested by the Commander, USF–I, 

to United States Central Command (CENTCOM), was $100.0 million for fiscal year 2011, which is consistent with the committee’s 

recommended funding level for CERP in Iraq. The committee also 

commends the Commander, USF–I, for issuing updated guidance to 

commanders in Iraq to ensure that only simpler, shorter, and less 

expensive CERP reconstruction projects are undertaken in order to 

ensure those projects can be completed before the end of 2011. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
208 

The committee also has concerns about the budget request of $1.1 billion for CERP in Afghanistan, an increase of $100.0 million 

above the level of Afghanistan CERP appropriated in fiscal year 

2010. In the Senate report accompanying S. 1390 (S. Rept. 111–35) 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the 

committee expressed significant concerns about the rapid growth of 

CERP funding in Afghanistan and the capacity of Afghanistan, 

given its lack of infrastructure and high illiteracy rates, to absorb 

such a significant influx of CERP funds. The committee also expressed concerns about the capacity of the Department of Defense 

to oversee and manage such a large increase in reconstruction 

funds. The Secretary of Defense has acknowledged congressional 

concerns with respect to CERP and has initiated an internal assessment of the program, including the need for better coordination 

within the Department, additional CERP managers in theater, and 

improved pre-deployment and in-country training. The committee 

welcomes this CERP review and looks forward to being briefed on 

the Department’s findings. In addition, the committee notes that 

CENTCOM has issued new guidelines limiting the number of 

projects each CERP team should oversee. The committee continues 

to have concerns about the capacity of Afghanistan to absorb such 

a large influx of CERP funds as well as other reconstruction assistance, and notes that as of the end of March 2010, less than $85.0 

million in CERP funds had been committed in Afghanistan and 

less than $50.0 million had been obligated of fiscal year 2010 

funds. The committee recommends a decrease in the budget request for CERP in Afghanistan of $300.0 million, to a level of 

$800.0 million. 

The committee therefore recommends a total decrease in the 

budget request for CERP in Iraq and Afghanistan of $400.0 million, 

to a funding level of $900.0 million. 

Increase in temporary limitation on amount for building capacity of foreign military forces to participate in or support military and stability operations (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would raise the limitation on the amount of funds available under the Global Train 

and Equip Program authorized by section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163; 

119 Stat. 3456), as amended, for programs to build the capacity of 

foreign military forces to participate in or support military and stability operations in which U.S. Armed Forces are participating. The 

provision would raise the limitation from $75.0 million during fiscal year 2010 to $100.0 million during fiscal year 2011. 

The committee believes that the use of section 1206 funds to 

build the capacity of coalition partners’ military forces to conduct 

stability operations is providing a valuable contribution to International Security Assistance Force operations in Afghanistan. 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations (sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2011 the authority of the Secretary of Defense to reimVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
209 

burse key cooperating nations for logistical and military support 

provided to or in connection with U.S. military operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF), pursuant to section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 393), 

as amended by section 1223 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2519). The 

provision would also extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide support to these key cooperating nations in the 

form of specialized training and supplies or the loan of specialized 

equipment. The total amount of reimbursements and other support 

provided under this provision would be limited to $1.6 billion for 

fiscal year 2011. The provision would also require the Secretary of 

Defense to submit to Congress the Department’s guidance on the 

use of the authority to provide specialized equipment and supplies 

and loan specialized equipment under this provision, and any modification to that guidance in the future. 

The provision would also extend until September 30, 2012, the 

requirements of section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 393) applicable to notifications of reimbursements of support provided by 

Pakistan. 

Extension and modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency 

Fund (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of section 1224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 

2521) regarding the use of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund 

(PCF) to build the capabilities of the Pakistan security forces to 

conduct counterinsurgency operations. The provision would also require that assistance under the PCF be provided in a manner that 

promotes observance of and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for legitimate civilian authority in 

Pakistan. 

The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a 

spend plan to the congressional defense committees no later than 

30 days after the Department of State transfers funds into the PCF 

but not less than 15 days prior to any obligation of those funds. 

The committee further directs the Department, following the submission of the spend plan, to submit to the congressional defense 

committees monthly commitment, obligation, and expenditure data, 

by subactivity group for the PCF, no later than 30 days after the 

end of each month. 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces 

of Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 1215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2011, the authority under section 1234 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–81; 123 Stat. 2533) to transfer defense articles, and 

provide defense services in connection with the transfer of those articles, to the Iraq security forces or the Afghanistan security forces 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
210 

to support their efforts to provide for peace and security internally. 

Defense articles subject to this provision must either be in Iraq or 

have been withdrawn from Iraq to Kuwait. The requirement to provide quarterly reports under this section would be extended 

through March 31, 2012. 

Sense of Congress and reports on training of Afghan National Police (sec. 1216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the U.S. Government should take measurable steps to improve its capacity to advise and mentor the Afghan 

National Police (ANP) and to clarify roles, missions, and responsibilities within the U.S. Government for police training and rule 

of law operations. 

The provision would also require a number of reports to Congress 

on police training in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, including: 

a report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG), 

in consultation with the Department of State Inspector General 

(DOSIG), on the ANP training program; a Government Accountability Office report on the use of U.S. Government personnel in 

place of contractors for the training of the ANP; and a report by 

the Secretary of Defense on a strategy for police training and rule 

of law programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere abroad. 

The committee is very concerned that after the disbursement of 

more than $6.3 billion in Afghan Security Forces Funds between 

fiscal year 2005 and March 2010 for police training, the ANP continues to suffer from low quality, high illiteracy rates, deceptive recruiting tactics, desertions, and corruption, according to an April 

30, 2010, report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction. In addition, a joint report by the DODIG and the 

DOSIG found numerous lapses in the oversight and management 

of the current police training contract. The committee intends to 

monitor closely the transition of contractual responsibility for the 

primary ANP training program from the Department of State to 

the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

One-year extension of report on progress toward security 

and stability in Afghanistan (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the requirement under section 1230 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 

Stat. 385), as amended by section 1236 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–81; 123 Stat. 

2535), for the President, acting through the Secretary of Defense, 

to submit a semi-annual report on progress toward security and 

stability in Afghanistan (the ‘‘section 1230 report’’). 

The committee notes that the section 1230 report submitted in 

April 2010 marked the first time that this report was provided to 

Congress on time and marked a significant improvement over earlier submissions of the report both in timeliness and substance. 

The committee believes that the section 1230 report is an important tool for providing Congress and the American people a baseVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
211 

line measurement of the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan 

and for evaluating the progress of U.S., coalition and Afghan forces 

in implementing the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy announced 

by the President. 

A critical component of the COIN strategy is building the capacity of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) to be able 

to provide for their country’s security. The committee supports the 

efforts to partner Afghan National Army units and Afghan National Police units with International Security Assistance Force 

units to build ANSF capacity while these units are deployed 

throughout the country. The committee requests that the Department develop metrics for effectively measuring the progress of the 

partnering effort in Afghanistan and include data on those metrics 

in the section 1230 reports in the future. 

Two-year extension of United States plan for sustaining the 

Afghanistan National Security Forces (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

years, through the end of fiscal year 2012, the requirement under 

section 1231 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 390) for the Secretary 

of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to report on 

the long-term plan for sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces. 

Report on Department of Defense support for coalition operations (sec. 1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the implementation of Department of Defense (DOD) authorities 

for providing support to coalition partners in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The report 

would include a description of the purpose and use of each authority, a summary of the amount of assistance provided under each 

authority, and an assessment of the effectiveness of this assistance. 

The report would also include for each country that received DOD 

coalition support a description of that country’s contribution to coalition operations in OEF or OIF, and an assessment of how the coalition support provided by the United States enhanced that country’s contribution. In addition, the report would include a description of the Department’s efforts to eliminate duplication and overlap in coalition support authorities and an assessment of ongoing 

and future needs for DOD coalition support authorities. The provision would define coalition support authorities to include: Coalition 

Support Funds, particularly the Coalition Readiness Support Program; the lift and sustain authorities; the authority to provide logistic support, supplies, and services to allied forces in combined 

operations; the temporary authority to lend significant military 

equipment under acquisition and cross-servicing agreements; the 

authority under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) to provide assistance to build foreign nations’ capacity to support military or staVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
212 

bility operations; and any other authority designated by the Secretary of Defense as a coalition support authority. 

The committee notes the multiple authorities DOD has requested 

over the past several years for enhancing the ability of partner nations to participate in coalition operations. The committee recognizes the important contribution of our partner nations in OEF and 

OIF and has sought to be supportive of combatant commanders’ 

needs for additional tools to promote the interoperability of U.S. 

and partner nation forces and to strengthen force protection during 

coalition operations. However, because the Department has sought 

the various coalition support authorities on an ad hoc basis, the 

committee believes there is a need for DOD to conduct a comprehensive review of the scope and effectiveness of these authorities and assess the requirement going forward for these coalition 

support authorities. 

Report on United States engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran (sec. 1234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President, no later than January 31, 2011, to deliver a report to 

Congress on U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

The report’s elements include assessments and discussions on: (1) 

ongoing diplomatic engagement activities with the Government of 

Iran, (2) the Government of Iran’s support for terrorism, (3) the 

Government of Iran’s nuclear activities, (4) the Government of 

Iran’s missile development activities, (5) the Government of Iran’s 

support for the illegal narcotics network in Afghanistan, (6) the 

Government of Iran’s strategic decision-making capacity, (7) sanctions against Iran, including an inventory and analysis of the effectiveness of such sanctions, and (8) U.S. student visa policy with respect to Iran. To the extent possible, the report shall be submitted 

in an unclassified format. 

Defense Policy Board report on Department of Defense 

strategy to counter violent extremism outside the 

United States (sec. 1235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Defense Policy Board to provide a report to Congress on the Department’s countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy outside of the 

United States. This report should include: (1) an assessment of the 

effectiveness of the Department’s ongoing CVE activities; (2) an 

analysis of alternatives and available options the Department 

should consider in its CVE activities; (3) an analysis of the Department’s information campaign against violent extremists; and (4) 

such recommendations for further action to address the matters 

covered by the report as the Defense Policy Board considers appropriate. 

In March 2010, the Senate Committee on Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on 

U.S. Government efforts to counter violent extremism with witnesses representing the Department of Defense and Department of 

State, as well as a panel of non-government witnesses. This hearing confirmed what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
213 

many times: we cannot capture or kill our way to victory in the war 

against al Qaeda and its affiliates. 

While the committee believes it is critical that the United States 

continue to take immediate, necessary actions to protect the United 

States and its interests from terrorist attacks, the committee also 

maintains, as does the Secretary of Defense, that an effective 

counterterrorism strategy must also include an appropriate focus 

on indirect actions that will be decisive in CVE. In the committee’s 

view, this means looking to the political, economic, philosophical, 

ideological, theological, and social factors that terrorist organizations exploit in pushing vulnerable individuals on the path toward 

violence. The committee believes a Defense Policy Board review of 

the Department’s existing CVE strategy will identify ways to improve that strategy. Such a study could also make recommendations to initiate new efforts, particularly with regard to field research, intelligence support to indirect activities, bilateral and multilateral engagement opportunities, and cooperation with other federal departments and agencies. 

Report on Cuba (sec. 1236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence and Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 180-days after enactment of this Act. The report would include descriptions of the Government of Cuba’s activities in the western hemisphere and their 

effort to collaborate with like-minded governments to undermine 

the national interests of the United States. 

Report on Venezuela (sec. 1237) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence and Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than 180-days after enactment of this Act, on any activities by the Government of Venezuela 

to: supply a terrorist organization with planning, training, logistics, 

and lethal material support; provide direct or indirect financial assistance to any terrorist organization; provide other types of assistance that could provide material support for any terrorist organization’s activities; support governments currently on the United 

States list of state sponsors of terrorism; and undermine the national interests of the United States. 

In testimony before the committee, Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, stated: ‘‘Since 

1999, Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, has increasingly demonstrated domestic and international behavior patterns which mirror similar past behavior patterns of four current state sponsors of 

terrorism . . . President Chavez’s main international mission is to 

challenge U.S. interests in the Americas and around the globe.’’ Admiral Olson went on to say: ‘‘Venezuela does not represent a direct 

military or terrorist threat to the United States, but Venezuela’s 

‘passive’ support to regional terrorist groups and paramilitary 

forces, maturing relationships with state sponsors of terrorism and 

permissive operating environment for terrorist and drug traffickers 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
214 

suggest increased scrutiny by the United States is warranted.’’ The 

committee shares Admiral Olson’s concerns and continues to monitor closely the activities of the Government of Venezuela. 

Report on the disarmament of the Lord’s Resistance Army 

(sec. 1238) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

Senate’s commitment to support efforts to work toward a comprehensive resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda and other 

areas affected by the Lord’s Resistance Army, including northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo, southern Sudan, and the 

Central African Republic, as well as the immediate need to support 

multilateral efforts to mitigate and eliminate the threat to civilians 

and regional stability posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army. The 

provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a strategy to provide military, logistics, and intelligence support to help strengthen viable regional and multilateral efforts to 

protect civilians from attacks by the Lord’s Resistance Army and 

apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from 

the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General Report on the Islamic Republic of Iran 

The findings of the Comptroller General’s recent report on commercial activity in Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors are 

very troubling. The committee is eager to ensure that the Comptroller General’s efforts to identify entities that have supported 

Iran’s oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors continue. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General to update its March 23, 

2010, report on a semi-annual basis through 2015. Further, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General to expand the scope of 

its work to include any entities that have aided the Iranian government’s efforts to filter the use of the internet, disrupt cell phone 

communications, monitor online activities, and jam the signals of 

U.S. and other international broadcasts into Iran. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to include the following, compiled from open sources: (1) entities that have a financial interest in the development of Iran’s online filtering and monitoring, cell phone disruption and monitoring activities, and radio 

and television signal jamming; and (2) which of the entities identified above, if any, have contracts, awards, or purchasing agreements with the U.S. Government. 

Instead of acting in a way to become a respected member of the 

community of nations, Iran’s leaders have disregarded international norms, abused the rights of their own people, supported 

terrorist groups, and threatened regional and global stability. 

There is a strong, bipartisan commitment in this committee and in 

Congress to prevent the Iranian government from continuing to 

abuse the rights of their own people. 

In the wake of the elections in June 2009, which were widely 

considered fraudulent, Iranians by the hundreds of thousands 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
215 

poured into the streets in nonviolent protest. The regime responded 

with brutality, and internal security forces and government-affiliated groups set upon protesters with guns and clubs. Of deep concern to the committee is the Iranian regime’s crackdown on freedom of expression and interference with the use of cellular, internet, and other means of communication to block the free flow of information. The committee is eager to learn more about the entities 

that have supported Iran’s campaign to stifle internal dissent and 

the free flow of information. 

Comptroller General Review of U.S. Assistance to the Government of the Republic of Yemen 

The committee notes that Yemen faces a wide variety of threats 

that pose significant risks to U.S. national security interests, of 

which the growth of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is 

the most concerning. In recent years, AQAP has exploited Yemen’s 

ungoverned spaces to plan, organize, and support terrorist operations against U.S. and Yemeni interests. The Commander of U.S. 

Central Command stated in testimony to the committee in March 

2010, that ‘‘[t]his network [AQAP] poses a direct threat to the U.S. 

homeland, as evidenced by recent plots, including the attempted 

bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009. At the same 

time, the Yemeni state faces challenges from separatist movements 

in the South and a six-year conflict with Houthi rebels, which despite the cease-fire in February could reignite and again spill over 

into Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the influx of refugees from Africa, 

pervasive arms smuggling, a deteriorating economic situation, and 

piracy continue to challenge the capabilities of the Yemeni government.’’ 

To help the Government of Yemen defend themselves from these 

threats, the United States has provided Yemen a range of assistance over the past several years, including ‘‘section 1206’’ train and 

equip assistance, ‘‘section 1207’’ stabilization assistance, assistance 

under a number of State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and other assistance from departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. The committee applauds the administration for taking an aggressive posture towards 

the threat emanating from Yemen. 

Given this significant investment in building the capacity of the 

Government of Yemen to defend themselves, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General to provide to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs a report on the following issues: 

(1) the amount and types of assistance the United States has provided to the Government of Yemen to include support from the U.S. 

Department of State, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for 

International Development, and other U.S. Government departments and agencies; (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. 

assistance to the Government of Yemen; (3) an assessment of the 

extent to which the Government of Yemen has been able to utilize 

U.S. assistance to counter the AQAP threat; (4) a discussion of the 

capability and reliability of security forces units within the Government of Yemen; (5) an assessment of how effectively the United 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
216 

States coordinated its assistance among the various federal agencies and other major donors and regional allies; and (6) other issues 

deemed appropriate by the Comptroller General. The Comptroller 

General shall provide this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees no later than January 31, 2011. 

Operation Unified Response and Joint Task Force—Haiti 

On January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Portau-Prince, Haiti. The devastation throughout the capital city and 

nearby areas was vast. United Nations estimates indicate more 

than 220,000 people were killed, 300,000 injured, and 1.2 million 

displaced by the earthquake and its 59 aftershocks. Nearly 50 percent of the buildings in Port-au-Prince sustained significant damage and several nearby towns suffered far worse. The airport was 

inoperable and more than half of the seaport was left in ruins. The 

people of Haiti were cut-off from the outside world and were in desperate need of immediate help. 

On January 13, 2010, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) 

and its service components began deploying personnel, aircraft, and 

ships to Haiti in support of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was the lead agency for the U.S. response. Joint 

Task Force-Haiti (JTF–H) was soon established and the military 

named its effort Operation Unified Response to indicate the collaborative nature of the mission. JTF–H performed its mission by 

working closely with the Government of Haiti, United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, U.S. Government agencies, and nongovernment organizations. 

The committee commends SOUTHCOM for its robust response, 

both in terms of personnel and military assets, to the tragic earthquake in Haiti and remains prepared to resource the Department 

of Defense to ensure continued support, to the extent practical, of 

the activities of other federal departments and agencies, whose objectives are the reconstruction, rehabilitation, and long-term stability of Haiti. The committee is also eager to see the Department 

move quickly to ensure that lessons-learned from this response are 

consolidated and shared throughout the Department to ensure improved planning for future humanitarian responses, particularly 

with interagency, international, and non-governmental organization involvement. 

Report on personnel contributions by the United States 

Armed Forces to international peacekeeping missions 

The committee notes that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

Admiral Michael Mullen, in response to advanced policy questions 

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate indicated that 

‘‘[United Nations] peacekeepers help promote stability and help reduce the risks that major U.S. military interventions may be required to restore stability in a country or region. Therefore, the 

success of these operations is very much in our national interest.’’ 

Further, as stated in the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, 

‘‘America’s power and influence are enhanced by . . . maintaining 

interactions with important international institutions such as the 

United Nations.’’ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
217 

In testimony before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 

House of Representatives on July 29, 2009, the U.S. Ambassador 

to the United Nations (UN), stated that the United States ‘‘is willing to consider directly contributing more military observers, military staff officers, civilian police, and other civilian personnel—including more women I should note—to UN peacekeeping operations.’’ 

The committee believes U.S. contributions to international peacekeeping missions enhance the influence of the United States in the 

implementation of these international mandates, provide an opportunity to expand engagement with partner nations, and enhance 

important military-to-military relationships with allies and partner 

nations. The committee is cognizant of the fact that U.S. military 

personnel may not necessarily be what the UN needs the most 

from the United States and that there are political and regional 

sensitivities that need to be taken into consideration when deploying U.S. personnel in support of peacekeeping missions. The committee is interested in any plans the Department may have under 

consideration to expand U.S. contributions to UN peacekeeping operations. 

The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives on: (1) current personnel 

contributions in the form of military observers and staff officers by 

the United States Armed Forces to UN and other multilateral 

peacekeeping missions; (2) a list of requests received by the Department of Defense (DOD) for military personnel contributions to UN 

or other multilateral peacekeeping missions (either directly from 

the UN or from the Department of State); (3) a description of the 

military chain of command for U.S. personnel deployed to UN or 

other multilateral peacekeeping missions to include the respective 

geographic combatant command, U.S. Military Observer GroupWashington, and the Senior Defense Official in the respective country; (4) an assessment of the strategic, operational, and tactical 

benefits, if any, of U.S. contributions to these peacekeeping missions; (5) a description of the role and mission of the U.S. Military 

Observer Group–Washington; and (6) a description and assessment 

of the role of the United States in the UN Security Council’s Military Staff Committee to include a discussion of planning, advising, 

and overseeing the implementation of the various UN peacekeeping 

missions. This report shall be provided to the Committees on 

Armed Services no later than 30 days after the end of the calendar 

year. The committee urges the Chairman to coordinate this report, 

to the extent practical, with the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. 

U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command and 

operational control 

The alliance between the United States and the Republic of 

Korea (ROK) has been a vital anchor for security and stability in 

Asia for more than 50 years, during which time the two countries 

have from time to time adjusted command and control relations in 

response to developments on the Korean Peninsula and our military capabilities. Throughout these adjustments, the United States 

has remained committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
218 

In November 1978, the United States and the Republic of Korea 

established a Combined Forces Command (CFC) to exercise command and control over our combined forces on the Korean Peninsula. CFC is responsible to both the U.S. and ROK National Command Authorities, as exercised through the Military Committee 

comprising the U.S. and ROK Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. 

This command structure was modified in December 1994 by removing ROK Armed Forces from the operational control of CFC 

during armistice conditions. In the event of renewed conflict on the 

Korean Peninsula, CFC would again employ operational control of 

both the ROK Armed Forces and U.S. Forces Korea, augmented by 

additional U.S. forces from the Pacific and worldwide. Both South 

Korean and U.S. officers would direct our combined land, air, sea, 

and other components under CFC. 

At the October 2006 U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting, 

the governments of the United States and the Republic of Korea 

agreed to disestablish Combined Forces Command and organize 

separate command structures on the Korean Peninsula, under 

which the Republic of Korea and the United States would exercise 

independent command during wartime. To this end, a Strategic 

Transition Plan was developed to ensure the necessary tasks and 

milestones are achieved to meet a deadline of April 17, 2012. 

Since the conclusion of the 2006 agreement, the situation on the 

Korean Peninsula has remained precarious. In this time, North 

Korea has backed out of the Six Party Talks, reportedly proliferated missile and nuclear technology, violated United Nations’ 

resolutions by launching ballistic missiles, and detonated a nuclear 

device. On March 26, 2010, North Korea attacked and destroyed 

the Republic of Korea Ship (ROKS) Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean sailors. The committee condemns this attack and expresses its 

sympathy to the families and loved ones of those killed and solidarity with the people of South Korea. 

In addition to North Korea’s regular provocations and violations 

of international law, there is significant uncertainty about regime 

stability in Pyongyang. These circumstances underscore the volatility and instability on the Korean Peninsula and the continuing 

threat North Korea poses to regional and global security. It is 

against this backdrop that preparations for the transition of operational control continue. 

The committee believes that in light of current tensions on the 

Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific more broadly, this is a 

moment when the United States should be cautious about any actions that may be misperceived as a lessening of our security commitments to our allies and strategic partners in this vitally important region. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 1, 2010, describing command and control relations on the Korean Peninsula. Specifically, this report should address: 

1. An assessment of the progress of preparations that have 

been made to date by the United States and by the ROK to 

execute the 2006 agreement; 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
219 

2. Describe under what circumstances, if any, the April 2012 

deadline would be adjusted; and, 

3. Assess any modifications to current operational control relationships or military capabilities that may enhance the combined effectiveness of U.S. and ROK Armed Forces. 

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consult with the 

ROK Minister of Defense in the preparation of this report. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(221) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $522.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision would also 

authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element, require 

notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011 funds for a purpose other than 

a purpose listed in the provision, and require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2011 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for each CTR program element. 

The committee notes that there is additional funding in the 

budget request for chemical weapons destruction, and supports the 

continuation of this line until the Russian chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch’ye, Russia is fully operational. 

The committee also notes that the defense and military contacts 

request includes funds to support interactions with foreign governments and entities in support of the CTR program. One of the goals 

of the CTR program when it was originally established was to improve relationships between the U.S. Department of Defense and 

the U.S. military, and the Ministries of Defense and the militaries 

of the states of the former Soviet Union. These interactions were 

successful and should be sustained. As the program has grown, 

however, particularly in the biological threat reduction area, much 

of the interaction is with civilian agencies and entities in the states 

of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. The committee supports 

these broader interactions as long as they continue to support the 

CTR program and mission. 

Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of 

excellence in countries outside of the former Soviet 

Union (sec. 1303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds from being obligated to establish a center of excellence in any country outside of the former 

Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the Secretary of Defense 

submits to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

particular center to be established. The report shall identify the 

country where the center will be established, the purpose for which 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
222 

the center will be used, the agreement under which the center will 

operate, and the funding plan for the center including any costsharing arrangement. 

The committee supports the expansion of CTR into countries outside of the FSU but would like to understand in more detail plans 

for new centers as these plans evolve. 

The committee also supports the effort to secure the most vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that this is a significant challenge that will require close interagency cooperation to 

be fully successful. The committee notes that the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, have a long and productive history of cooperation 

in threat reduction programs, and urge them to continue this close 

collaboration in the accelerated program. 

Plan for nonproliferation, proliferation prevention, and 

threat reduction activities with the People’s Republic of 

China (sec. 1304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to submit a joint 

report to the congressional defense committees on the 5 year plan 

to carry out nonproliferation and threat reduction activities with 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The plan would be due by 

March 1, 2011. 

The committee supports expansion of the proliferation prevention 

efforts globally and the efforts of the Department of Energy and 

the Department of Defense to broaden the range of participants in 

such programs. The committee expects this effort to be a partnership and hopes that the PRC will fully support financially, technically, and politically, these important nonproliferation and threat 

reduction activities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(223) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Matters 

Consolidation and reorganization of statutory authority for 

destruction of United States stockpile of lethal chemical 

agents and munitions (sec. 1411) 

At the request of the Department of Defense (DOD), the committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1412 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (50 

U.S.C. 1521), which provides the statutory authority for the chemical demilitarization program. Rather than display only the amendments to the law, the recommended provision would restate a consolidated, reorganized, and updated version of the entire amended 

law for transparency and ease of comprehension. 

The original law has been amended many times over the last 25 

years, leading to an assortment of separate provisions, which made 

it difficult to see the whole of statutory authority for the chemical 

demilitarization program. These amendments were sometimes 

overlapping or duplicative. The recommended provision would also 

repeal the various provisions of law restated in the consolidated 

version of section 1412, as well as obsolete provisions of law. 

Of fundamental importance, the restated provision would be entirely consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), 

which entered into force in 1997, more than a decade after the 

original chemical demilitarization authority was written. The older 

provisions of law contain elements that are inconsistent with the 

CWC. 

The committee recommends two substantive changes to DOD’s 

proposal, both of which otherwise would have been inconsistent 

with the CWC. The committee recommendation would eliminate 

section 1412(b)(3), written in 1985, more than a decade before the 

CWC, when the United States was still permitted to acquire and 

possess chemical weapons. The provision authorized the Secretary 

of Defense to delay the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile for a number of reasons including a determination that there 

was a significant delay in the acquisition of a sufficient number of 

binary chemical weapons. This is clearly inconsistent with the 

CWC and has been eliminated in the recommended provision. 

The second provision, section 1412(h), was also written long before the CWC, and it authorized the Secretary of Defense to acquire binary chemical weapons, which is strictly prohibited by the 

CWC. It also permitted the acquisition of ‘‘any chemical agent or 

munition’’ for intelligence analysis purposes, as well as the acquisition of chemical agents and munitions for research, development, 

test, and evaluation purposes in appropriate non-production quanVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
224 

tities. This provision has been rewritten to provide for authorized 

uses of toxic chemicals for purposes not prohibited by the CWC, 

which would make it entirely consistent with the CWC. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 

Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 

Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer funds from Defense Health Program operation and maintenance to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund. Such funds would be authorized to be used for operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center 

or other facilities designated as a combined federal medical facility. 

The President’s budget request projects $132.2 million for transfer in fiscal year 2011 to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund. 

The committee acknowledges receipt of a letter dated April 4, 2010, 

from Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

Shinseki stating that the departments do not plan another location 

replicating this federal health care center model, and urges the Department of Defense to conduct an independent study of the benefit 

of the integrated facility in North Chicago in meeting the health 

care needs of Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 

Affairs eligible populations. 

Budget Items 

Defense Coalition Support Fund 

The budget request included $10.0 million for the Defense Coalition Support Fund. The legislative authority for this fund does not 

exist, and would require an amendment to title 22, United States 

Code, which is outside the committee’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

the committee is unable to authorize the requested funds at this 

time. 

Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 

Health Program Operations and Maintenance account includes the 

following changes from the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels are discussed in greater detail 

in title VII of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

TRICARE eligibility for dependents up to age 26 ............................................... 10.0 

Extension of prohibition on increase of TRICARE inpatient fees ...................... 12.0 

Total ................................................................................................................. 22.0 

Department of Defense Inspector General, second year 

growth plan 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the programs and operations of the DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
225 

ment of Defense (DOD), and recommends policies and process improvements that promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD programs and operations. The committee continues 

to note the dramatic growth in the number and cost of DOD contracts for operations, procurement, research, and military construction within the United States and around the world. The increase 

recommended by the committee will enable the OIG to conduct 

oversight related to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

review contract management and acquisitions, and support audits 

to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse. To date, efforts by the 

OIG have yielded over a $3.1 billion return on investment with respect to achieved monetary benefits, investigative fines, restitutions, and recoveries. 

The budget request included $283.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) and Procurement for the OIG. 

The committee continues to be concerned that funding levels for 

independent audit and investigative functions should keep pace 

with the demand for these services, particularly given that the 

budget request is a decrease from $288.1 million in the fiscal year 

2010 budget request. The committee recommends a total increase of $33.8 million in 

OMDW for the OIG as follows: $29.3 million for operation and 

maintenance and $4.5 million for research, development, test and 

evaluation. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(227) 

TITLE XV—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) 

This section would provide that the amounts authorized for overseas contingency operations in this title are in addition to the 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of up to $4.0 billion of overseas contingency operations 

funding authorized in this title. These special transfer authorities 

are in addition to the general transfer authority contained in section 1001 of this Act, but the same reprogramming procedures applicable to transfers under section 1001 would also apply to transfers under this section. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Availability of amounts in Overseas Contingency Operations 

Transfer Fund solely for detainee operations at United 

States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

use of $105,000,000 in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 

Transfer Fund solely for detainee operations at the United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Consistent with this provision, the OCO Transfer Fund is reduced by $245,000,000, which 

had been requested for costs associated with improvements and operations at a proposed military detention facility at Thomson, Illinois. 

Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security 

Forces Fund (sec. 1532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) in fiscal year 2011 to comply with the 

conditions in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181; 122 Stat. 428), except the authority in subsection 1513(d) 

to transfer ASFF funds to other accounts and funds of the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The provision would amend subsection 1513(b) to permit ASFF 

funding to also be used to assist forces or personnel within Afghan 

ministries, other than the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior, that are assigned to and supporting the Major Crimes Task 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
228 

Force—Afghanistan. This provision would allow assistance for law 

enforcement investigative teams within the Afghan National Directorate of Security that support the Task Force and are not engaged 

in intelligence gathering activities, and prosecutors from the Afghan Attorney General’s office assigned to such teams. 

The provision would also modify subsection 1513(g) to provide 

that the reports submitted under section 9010 of the DOD Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111–118; 123 Stat. 3466), or a successor provision of law, could be treated as satisfying the requirement under that subsection for quarterly reports on the ASFF. 

The committee recognizes the critical importance of building the 

capacity of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) to assume security responsibility for Afghanistan. The committee supports the goal of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Training 

Mission—Afghanistan (NTM–A)/Combined Security Transition 

Command—Afghanistan to rapidly grow the Afghan National Army 

and the Afghan National Police (ANP) to a combined force of more 

than 300,000 by October 2011. The committee also emphasizes the 

importance of partnering deployed Afghan and coalition forces together for developing the capabilities of Afghan units through ‘‘on 

the job training.’’ The committee requests that it be kept fully informed of the progress of efforts to build the ANSF through periodic updates on metrics for the recruitment, training and retention 

of, and the partnering of coalition forces with, Afghan security 

forces. 

The committee supports the decision to transition oversight of 

the contract for training the ANP from the Department of State 

(DOS) to the DOD. However, the committee is concerned over the 

delays in awarding the ANP training contract resulting from 

DOD’s initial decision to use a contracting vehicle that a Government Accountability Office review later found to be inappropriate. 

As the DOD proceeds with a full and open competition, the committee urges the DOD and DOS to cooperate closely to make appropriate modifications to the existing DOS-managed ANP training 

contract to address oversight deficiencies and align contract requirements with the NTM–A mission. 

Following a lengthy investigation, the committee devoted a hearing to examining evidence of serious deficiencies in the conduct of 

a contractor involved in the training of Afghan security forces. Before a decision is made to award the ANP training contract, the 

committee strongly urges the DOD to take into consideration the 

totality of each contractor’s past performance including: (1) whether 

that contractor has complied with all applicable laws and regulations of the United States and the host country, applicable treaties 

and international agreements, and standards set forth by the geographic combatant commander; and (2) information relating to each 

contractor’s performance, including but not limited to formal evaluations and audits of each contractor and any parent, subsidiary, 

or affiliated business of that contractor that has operated in the 

U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. The committee is 

concerned to have learned that in some cases the Department may 

have failed to conduct performance evaluations of training contracts in Afghanistan and requests that the Department review its 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
229 

practices in this regard and ensure that the performance of contractors in Afghanistan are properly and fully evaluated. 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533) 

The committee recommends a provision that authorizes $1.0 billion in fiscal year 2011 for the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to build the minimum essential 

capabilities of the Iraqi security forces of the Ministry of Defense 

(MOD) and the Ministry of Interior (MOI). Types of assistance that 

would be authorized would include equipment, supplies, services, 

training, and repair and renovation of facilities and infrastructure. 

The Secretary of Defense must provide Congress a detailed notification at least 15 days prior to the obligation of funds under the 

Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF). 

The provision would also limit the availability of the funds au- thorized by this provision for the ISFF to $500.0 million until the 

Secretary of Defense provides a certification to Congress. The Secretary of Defense would have to certify that he has determined that 

the Government of Iraq has demonstrated a commitment to (1) 

adequately build the logistics and maintenance capacity of the 

Iraqi security forces; (2) develop the institutional capacity to manage such forces independently; and (3) develop a culture of 

sustainment for equipment provided or acquired with United 

States assistance. 

The United States has appropriated over $18.0 billion in ISFF to date. The budget request included $2.0 billion for the ISFF, of 

which the committee would authorize $1.0 billion. As in previous 

years, the committee believes that the Government of Iraq should 

assume increasing responsibility for the costs associated with 

building their security forces, particularly as U.S. forces draw 

down. The committee urges the Government of Iraq to dedicate any 

unexpended funds from previous years’ budgets towards building 

Iraq’s minimum essential capabilities. 

The committee is also concerned that a significant portion of the 

funds requested for the ISFF in the fiscal year 2010 supplemental 

and the fiscal year 2011 budget request is planned for the maintenance and sustainment of the Iraqi security forces, including maintenance for recently transferred U.S. equipment. The committee 

urges the Secretary of Defense and the Commander, United States 

Forces—Iraq, to ensure that the Government of Iraq is committed 

to the maintenance and sustainment of its security forces and allocates the resources within the budgets of the MOD and MOI to 

adequately provide for the upkeep of its security forces beyond the 

December 2011 date. 

Projects of Task Force for Business and Stability Operations 

in Afghanistan and report on economic strategy for Afghanistan (sec. 1534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use up to $150.0 million in Army Operation 

and Maintenance, Overseas Contingency Operations, to fund 

projects of the Department of Defense’s Task Force on Business 

and Stability Operations in Afghanistan that support the counterinsurgency strategy through economic development and job creVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
230 

ation. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with the Secretary of State, to report to Congress 

on an economic strategy for Afghanistan that supports the counterinsurgency campaign, promotes economic stabilization, and enhances the establishment of sustainable institutions in Afghanistan. 

Report on management controls and oversight mechanisms 

for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (sec. 1535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, a report 

on the current management controls and oversight mechanisms for 

the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO). The report would include: (1) a description of the current management structure and reporting relationships of 

JIEDDO; (2) recommendations for any changes to such management structure and reporting relationships that may be needed to 

ensure appropriate management control and oversight of the operations and activities of JIEDDO; (3) an assessment of the degree 

to which acquisition professionals from the military departments 

are included in JIEDDO and whether further steps are needed to 

strengthen the role and participation of acquisition professionals 

from the military departments in funding and development decisions; (4) an assessment of the departmental controls on JIEDDO, 

including systems for identifying and addressing material weaknesses in such departmental controls; (5) an assessment of the data 

collection and metrics used to determine the effectiveness of 

JIEDDO’s initiatives and investments and make any needed adjustments to such initiatives and investments; and (6) an assessment of whether JIEDDO or the military services are performing 

activities that are duplicative and determination of where these activities should be located. 

The committee applauds the Secretary of Defense’s ongoing effort 

to review the activities of JIEDDO and the other OCO-related task 

forces. The committee agrees that the sharp focus and attention of 

a task force is something that is lost over time, and the committee 

looks forward to being briefed on the outcome of the Secretary’s review. 

However, the committee believes more must be done to increase 

oversight of JIEDDO’s activities. As a result, the committee urges 

the Secretary to consider as part of his review an examination of 

whether a principal staff assistant, such as the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L), 

could devote additional time and attention to JIEDDO’s operations 

and activities. Further, USD AT&L could play a critical role in ensuring the military departments establish and maintain robust 

counter-improvised explosive device (IED) research, development, 

and acquisition capabilities and ensure that JIEDDO’s initiatives 

are rapidly transitioned to the military departments and measured 

for effectiveness during and after their deployment. 

The committee agrees with military commanders’ conclusion that 

IEDs will remain a threat to U.S. forces beyond operations in Iraq 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
231 

and Afghanistan and, therefore, the committee believes it is critical 

that military departments establish and maintain robust counterIED research, development, and acquisition capabilities. 

Sense of Congress on support for integrated civilian-military training for civilian personnel deploying to Afghanistan (sec. 1536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United 

States Agency for International Development, should continue to 

provide personnel, trainers, and resources in support of integrated 

civilian-military training for civilians deploying to serve Afghanistan. The committee notes that such training has been taking place 

at Camp Atterbury in Indiana, hosted by the Indiana National 

Guard, since July 2009 and has been mandatory for all civilians 

serving in the field in Afghanistan since October 2009. 

Budget Items 

Base Expeditionary Targeting and Surveillance System— 

Combined 

The request includes $486.1 million in Other Procurement, Army 

(OPA) for the Base Expeditionary Targeting System of Systems– 

Combined (BETSS–C). Included within this request is $41.0 million 

for 2 commercial helicopters and 19 associated support personnel 

for the exclusive use in theater of BETSS–C contract logistics support. The committee is aware that BETSS–C is an important force 

protection system that contributes to the security of fixed installations in theater. However, including $41.0 million in this request 

for commercial helicopters is not justified given the availability of 

a variety of aviation support throughout the theater. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $41.0 million in OPA for 

BETSS–C. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request includes $3,250.0 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. This includes $1,434.4 million 

for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization’s 

(JIEDDO) attack the network line of operation; $286.2 million for 

JIEDDO’s train the force line of operation; and $1,529.4 million for 

JIEDDO’s defeat the device line of operation. The committee recommends full funding for JIEDDO, but also recommends the following decreases, all of which will be transferred to JIEDDO’s staff 

and infrastructure line of operation in the Overseas Contingency 

Operations request: $218.6 million in JIEDDO’s attack the network 

line of operation; $35.2 million JIEDDO’s train the force line of operation; and $95.9 million JIEDDO’s defeat the device line of operation. 

As noted elsewhere in this report concerning title I of this Act, 

the committee transferred JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure base 

budget request of $215.9 million to the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Upon completion of these transfers, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
232 

JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure line of operation will be approximately $565.5 million. 

Upon further review of JIEDDO’s budget request, the committee 

determined that a significant amount of JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure expenses were accounted for in its other lines of operation. In order to provide a more accurate accounting of JIEDDO’s 

funding levels, the committee performed the aforementioned transfers. 

Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $1,887.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), to purchase 7 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft for the Navy (F–35C), $2,576.1 million in APN for 13 JSF aircraft for the Marine Corps (F–35B), and $3,986.2 million in Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 22 JSF for the Air Force (F– 

35A). In addition, the budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) include $204.9 million in APAF for 1 F–35A to replace one legacy aircraft lost in combat operations. 

Since last year, the Department found significant problems in 

the performance of the F–35 contractor team in conducting the elements of the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase 

of the program, which have led to delays in developmental testing 

of the aircraft. The Department restructured the program in conjunction with submitting the fiscal year 2011 budget by taking a 

number of actions, including: (1) extending the development test 

schedule to March 2015; (2) adding additional research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) funds to pay for mitigating 

known risks; (3) buying another carrier variant developmental test 

aircraft and add another software integration line to the program; 

(4) using up to three aircraft procured under low-rate initial production (LRIP) contracts for developmental testing; (5) reducing 

procurement quantities over the future-years defense program 

(FYDP) to slow the planned production ramp up in later years and 

offset added funding for developmental testing; and (6) installing a 

new fee structure that would provide incentives for the contractor 

team to achieve key performance events and cost goals. 

Last year, Congress approved funding for 30 aircraft. This year, 

the budget request is for a total of 43 F–35 aircraft of all types. 

The number of 43 aircraft matches what had been the planned production rate for the F–35 aircraft 2 years ago before any of these 

problems and delays became evident. The FYDP for fiscal year 

2009 included a plan to buy 43 JSF aircraft in 2011, although the 

mix of F–35A and F–35C aircraft changed by one aircraft each. 

The committee understands that the Department would prefer to 

get JSF aircraft sooner. However, the fact that the production 

changes recommended by the Department in this restructuring 

only affect production plans later in the FYDP means that the concurrency in the program for fiscal year 2011 has actually increased. 

The committee believes that a more modest ramp up in production to a total of 42 aircraft in the near-term would lessen that concurrency, while increasing the production rate from 30 aircraft to 

allow the program to demonstrate that the production processes 

and management systems will support growing to higher levels 

later in the FYDP. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
233 

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $204.9 million in the APAF account within OCO. 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund 

The budget request includes $3,415.0 million for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Fund. The committee recommends full funding of the Department of Defense’s request for 

the MRAP Vehicle Fund, which includes the lighter, more mobile 

MRAP all-terrain vehicle variant suited for conditions in Afghanistan. The increased protection provided by MRAP vehicles as compared to the alternative of armored High Mobility Multipurpose 

Wheeled Vehicles has been proven by the reduction of U.S. and allied casualties due to improvised explosive devices since the introduction of MRAPs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Production and fielding 

of these vehicles is expected to be completed over the coming budget cycle, but sustainment and potential upgrades of the vehicles 

will continue. The committee will monitor closely how the MRAP 

family of vehicles is incorporated into plans to develop the nextgeneration of ground combat vehicles for the armed forces. 

Further, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 28, 2011, a report that describes the Department’s plan to consolidate lessonslearned from the MRAP program, including industrial base management in response to urgent requests from theater relating to 

MRAPs and/or M-ATVs. 

Wide-area airborne surveillance exploitation 

The budget request included classified amounts in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 35102BQ for 

the Defense Geospatial Intelligence Program (DGIP) in the Overseas Contingency Operations account. In 2008, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) submitted a prior-approval reprogramming request 

on an urgent basis to field enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for U.S. forces operating in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. Among the high-priority requests were funds for 

new technology for retrieving, storing, and transmitting wide-area 

airborne surveillance (WAAS) motion video collected by systems 

such as Constant Hawk and Angel Fire. 

These WAAS processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) 

technologies were grouped together with an initiative to improve 

the PED for narrow-field-of-view full-motion video (FMV) that was 

beginning to proliferate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This ensemble 

of projects was given the name Valiant Angel, even though that 

name had originally been assigned only to the WAAS PED initiative. While the WAAS PED elements were unique and mature, and 

ready for rapid fielding, the FMV PED was considered by Joint 

Forces Command (JFCOM) to require a competition for development and integration. 

A contract for the entire Valiant Angel program was awarded in 

late calendar year 2009, long after Congress received the urgent reprogramming request. A recent letter from the J–2 for U.S. forces 

Afghanistan indicates that the FMV PED portion of Valiant Angel 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
234 

is no longer even needed, having been superseded by other developments. 

The committee is concerned that the apparent collapse of the 

Valiant Angel program will result in the continued delay or even 

the loss of the original WAAS PED Valiant Angel technology. There 

are now several more WAAS collection platforms nearing deployment, each of which will collect far more data than the original 

Constant Hawk and Angel Fire systems. These include the Gorgon 

Stare and Blue Devil Quick-Reaction Capabilities (QRCs), and the 

second generation of Constant Hawk. Operators and consumers of 

the data from these systems will continue to need the WAAS PED 

capabilities originally planned under the Valiant Angel program. 

Securing licenses for those capabilities will not cost much money 

or take any time at all. The committee requests that the ISR Task 

Force immediately work with the Air Force, Army, and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to acquire licenses for 

the Valiant Angel WAAS PED capabilities and synchronize their 

employment with the ongoing WAAS collection system deployments. The committee requests a status report on this effort prior 

to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $3.0 million 

above the requested amount for the DGIP for support for the Valiant Angel WAAS PED projects. 

On April 22, 2010, the Air Force announced that the Gorgon 

Stare Increment 2 will be based on the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency Autonomous Realtime Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance (ARGUS) camera. Increment 2 plans call for the purchase of 

6 ARGUS pods. The Air Force announcement was accompanied by 

an admission that the Air Force needs help from NGA to satisfy 

the ARGUS PED requirements, both in volume and complexity. 

NGA has informed the committee that the NGA budget is short 

$22.5 million to address this requirement. Therefore, the committee 

also recommends authorization of an additional $22.5 million for 

ARGUS PED capabilities. 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

The budget request included $1.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), 

for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq 

and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2011. The request consisted of 

$200.0 million for CERP in Iraq and $1.1 billion for CERP in Afghanistan. The committee’s concerns with respect to the levels of 

CERP for both Iraq and Afghanistan are discussed in title XII. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $400.0 million 

in OMA, OCO, for CERP, to a level of $900.0 million, consisting of 

$100.0 million for CERP in Iraq and $800.0 million for CERP in 

Afghanistan. 

Iraq Security Forces Fund 

The budget request included $2.0 billion for the Iraq Security 

Forces Fund (ISFF) to build the minimum essential capabilities of 

the Iraqi security forces of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior. The committee has consistently taken the view 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
235 

that the Government of Iraq should take on increasing responsibility for the costs of building the capacity of its security forces. 

The committee’s concerns regarding the ISFF are discussed further 

elsewhere in title XV. Accordingly, the committee recommends a 

decrease of $1.0 billion for ISFF to a level of $1.0 billion. 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 

The budget request included $1.55 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Transfer Fund. Of this amount, 

$350,000,000 was requested for detainee operations, including 

$245,000,000 for costs associated with the improvements to a detention facility at Thomson, Illinois, that is planned to be acquired 

by the Federal Government from the State of Illinois, and for detention operations conducted at that facility once acquired and the 

improvements are made. The committee recommends a decrease in 

the OCO Transfer Fund of $245,000,000. Elsewhere in this title the 

committee recommends a provision that would restrict the use of 

the remaining $105,000,000 of the $350,000,000 requested within 

the OCO Transfer Fund solely for detainee operations at the 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(237) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental cleanup, and other activities required to 

implement the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for 

the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this 

Act, other than the overseas contingency operations projects authorized in title XXIX, and summarize that funding by account. 

Funding for base closure projects is summarized in the table that 

follows, and is explained in additional detail in the table included 

in title XXVII of this report. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget requested $20.0 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $14.2 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.8 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $2.7 billion for base 

closure activities, including $2.35 billion to implement the results 

of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. 

Excluding the overseas contingency operations projects in title 

XXIX, the committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

for military construction and housing programs totaling $18.7 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the 

committee’s continuing commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011. 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure 

program as October 1, 2013, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2014, 

whichever is later. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(239) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $4.08 billion for military construction and $610.0 million for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $3.8 billion for military construction and $610.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends moving $101.5 million of military 

construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) 

area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $71.0 million in canceled or 

accelerated Army projects from the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these funding changes will 

allow for more efficient execution of CENTCOM military construction projects. 

The committee recommends incrementally funding the Aviation 

Task Force Hanger at Fort Wainwright, Alaska and the Sensitive 

Compartmentalized Information Facility at Weisbaden Air Base in 

Germany. This action is taken without prejudice and merely to facilitate the most efficient use of taxpayer funds. 

The committee recommends deferring funding for three museum 

support operations buildings until the Department of the Army can 

develop a plan to collocate these facilities with privately-funded 

museums planned for construction at the same locations. The committee believes there are higher funding priorities this fiscal year. 

The committee also eliminated funding for barracks at Soto Cano 

Air Base in Honduras. The lack of a host nation agreement governing the construction of permanent military facilities makes this 

project unnecessary. The committee understands that the facilities 

in Soto Cano require improvement and will seek to work with the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to find alternate acceptable solutions. 

The committee eliminated funding for a commissary at U.S. 

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) headquarters in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. The committee believes that DOD Instruction 

1330.17 clearly states that significant growth (more than 25 percent in 2 years) is required to use appropriated dollars to fund construction of a new commissary at an existing installation. There 

has not been significant growth at SOUTHCOM headquarters, 

therefore, appropriated dollars should not be used. The committee 

finds that the clarification memorandum signed by Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Michael 

Dominguez on December 1, 2008, serves only to confuse the matter 

by misquoting the Instruction. The phrase ‘‘initial establishment of 

a commissary on an existing installation’’ is not contained in the 

original text and is therefore not persuasive. The committee beVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
240 

lieves that the Surcharge Fund created by 10 U.S.C. 2484(d) is the 

appropriate source of funds as allowed by 10 U.S.C. 2484(h). 

The committee eliminated funding for Phase 1, Increment 2 of an 

Aviation Task Force Complex at Fort Wainwright, Alaska as the 

Department has informed the committee that funding for this increment of the project is no longer required. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management 

offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2011 to improve existing Army family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2011 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Army. The State list contained in this report is the binding list of 

the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 

projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for eight Army fiscal year 2008 military construction 

projects until October 1, 2012, or the date of enactment of an act 

authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2013, 

whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2009 project (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

table in section 2101(b) of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110–417) by 

striking ‘‘Katterbach’’ and inserting ‘‘Grafenwoehr’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
241 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2010 project (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

table in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111–84; 123 

Stat. 2628) for Fort Riley, Kansas, for construction of a Brigade 

Complex at the installation, to allow the Secretary of the Army to 

construct up to a 40,100 square-feet brigade headquarters consistent with the Army’s construction guidelines for brigade headquarters. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(243) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$3.88 billion for military construction and $552.0 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$3.7 billion for military construction and $552.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee notes that the fiscal year budget request continues to contain funding for the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. The committee recommends the elimination of 

funding for three projects on Guam totaling $320.0 million. These 

three projects are ahead of need. The committee notes that two of 

these projects, both at Andersen Air Force Base, have significant 

amounts of fiscal year 2010 dollars that cannot be obligated or expended in advance of a Record of Decision planned for September 

2010. The committee believes that these funds are sufficient to 

keep these projects on schedule so no additional funds are required 

in fiscal year 2011. The committee believes that site preparations 

at Finegayan are ahead of need as long as significant progress is 

not made to fulfill Marine Corps live fire training requirements on 

or near Guam. An item of special interest later in this title more 

fully reflects the committee’s views on this critical program. 

The committee notes that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement identifies two parcels of land on Guam currently under the 

control of the Government of Guam or private owners. No alternatives meet 100 percent of the Marine Corps’ need. The committee 

recommends that the Department explore the use of Tinian Island 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as alternatives should it become impossible to acquire adequate land on 

Guam. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management 

offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
244 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2011 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

military construction and family housing projects for the activeduty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2008 

project (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2008 authorization for various world-wide host nation 

infrastructures until October 1, 2011, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever 

is later. 

Technical amendment to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 

project (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify section 

2204(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111–84). 

Item of Special Interest 

Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam 

The committee notes that on February 17, 2009, The United 

States Government formally reaffirmed support for an agreement 

with the Government of Japan to realign U.S. forces on the Island 

of Okinawa and to relocate 8,000 Marines and their families from 

Okinawa to Guam by 2014. This realignment is a key element of 

the transformation of the alliance with Japan and secures the enduring presence of remaining U.S. forces in Japan. The committee 

also notes that on September 16, 2009, a new government and 

Prime Minister assumed power in Japan and embarked on a review of the formal agreement, specifically an examination of options for the construction of a replacement facility for Marine Corps 

Air Station Futenma at Camp Schwab, Okinawa. 

The committee is aware that the success of this agreement continues to depend on many factors including tangible progress towards completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF), successful completion of the environmental impact statement for 

Guam, and the coordinated funding of over $10.0 billion by both 

countries to complete construction of all operational requirements, 

housing, training ranges, as well as the upgrade to the civilian infrastructure and utilities on Guam. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
245 

Regarding the FRF, the ‘‘Agreement Between the Government of 

the United States of America and The Government of Japan Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and their Dependents from Okinawa to 

Guam’’ signed on February 17, 2009, specifically cites in Article 3 

that ‘‘The Relocation shall be dependent on tangible progress made 

by the Government of Japan toward completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility as stipulated in the roadmap.’’ The committee 

notes that ‘tangible progress’ was previously considered by the Department of Defense (DOD) to be a signature by the Governor of 

Okinawa on a landfill permit required to commence construction of 

the off-shore runway. This action has been indefinitely delayed 

pending the outcome of a review of the agreement. 

As for the planned construction on Guam, the Department of the 

Navy published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

in November 2009, in advance of a Record of Decision (ROD) 

planned for September 2010. The committee notes that six military 

construction projects totaling $378.0 million authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84) cannot be awarded until the public release of the ROD, assuming that no legal action is undertaken against the ROD that 

would include an injunction against new construction. Therefore, 

the amounts authorized for appropriation for these military construction projects will not be expended until at least fiscal year 

2011. 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a 

review of the DEIS on February 17, 2010. The EPA rated the DEIS 

as environmentally unsatisfactory due to adverse impacts to the 

Guam water supply, wastewater treatment, and sensitive coral reef 

ecosystems in Apra harbor. Furthermore, the EPA determined that 

the DEIS did not adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the introduction of up to 56,000 additional 

residents that could greatly exacerbate an already environmentally 

unsatisfactory situation. Ultimately, the EPA ‘‘is concerned about 

the magnitude of the project impacts, including public health impacts, upon the existing substandard conditions on Guam, further 

impeding Guam’s efforts to comply with federal environmental laws 

and policies.’’ The Department of Defense is concerned that many 

of the EPA findings require remedies and investments that are outside their traditional funding responsibilities. 

Investments by the United States Government in Guam’s infrastructure for port upgrades, roads, and utilities are the essential 

first steps to ensure that significant construction efforts can be 

supported without detrimental impact to the local community. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued numerous reports 

in 2008 and 2009 raising concerns about the lack of planning within the U.S. Government to address civilian requirements. In the 

latest report, ‘‘Defense Infrastructure: Guam Needs Timely Information from DOD to Meet Challenges in Planning and Financing 

Off-Base Projects and Programs to Support a Larger Military Presence’’ (GAO–10–90R, November 13, 2009), GAO cited the testimony 

before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 

May 2008, where the Governor of Guam outlined requirements toVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
246 

taling $6.1 billion to expand the commercial port, roadways, power, 

water, and other infrastructure as well as certain public services 

in support of the buildup. These infrastructure needs and services 

were proposed to be part of a multiyear funding program to ensure 

that Guam would be able to support the buildup and secure postbuildup sustainability. The committee notes that no funding was 

included in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2010 or 2011 to 

address Guam’s port and utility infrastructure requirements, despite the fact that $378.0 million was requested to start military 

construction activities at Andersen Air Force Base and Apra Harbor, and $427.0 million is requested in fiscal year 2011 to continue 

these projects and to start site preparations at Finegayan for the 

Marine cantonment area. Since release of the fiscal year 2011 

budget request, the committee received a subsequent request on 

April 5, 2010, for support of an amendment to be included in the 

act for Fiscal Year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations to authorize 

the Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million to the 

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration’s Port of 

Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund for capital improvements to 

the Port of Guam. The committee notes that the administration 

submitted this amendment after the Guam Government was denied a $50.0 million grant for port improvements requested 

through the process established for appropriations provided by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for 2009 (Public Law 

111–5). 

The committee is concerned that the request for authority to 

transfer DOD funds for infrastructure upgrades to civilian facilities 

is to be carried out within existing DOD accounts, which will result 

in the deferment or cancellation of other DOD priorities. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that this request for transfer authority may demonstrate intent for DOD to fund up to the $6.1 billion in requirements identified by the Government of Guam to support the relocation. 

The committee also notes that the leaders in the United States 

Marine Corps have publicly stated that the establishment of live 

fire training areas on Guam are absolutely essential to the successful relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa. The DEIS has identified two parcels of land on Guam currently under the control of 

the Government of Guam or private owners. No DEIS alternatives 

meet 100 percent of the training and range requirements identified 

by the Marine Corps. Even with the successful purchases of the 

non-DOD lands identified in the DEIS, the Marine Corps will not 

have a dedicated dud producing ordnance impact area, which limits 

heavy machine gun training. The current plan does not provide for 

an integrated combined-arms maneuver range, nor does it provide 

an area for amphibious landing beaches. In addition, the current 

plan will provide limited Special Use Airspace, preventing close air 

support training. One proposed solution would be the use of Tinian 

Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

but to date, DOD has not identified or planned for projects in these 

areas to support training for a full spectrum of Marine Corps operations. 

In consideration of these facts, the committee recommends that 

authorizations for the construction of certain projects requested to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
247 

support the movement of Marines to Guam be deferred until the 

DOD provides Congress with: (1) certification that tangible 

progress has been made to implement a final decision concerning 

the FRF considered acceptable to DOD and meeting the operational 

requirements for the United States Marines on Okinawa; (2) a 

Record of Decision with a mitigation plan to minimize the negative 

impact to the local community and local ecosystems; (3) a determination of requirements and estimate of the amounts for the upgrade of civilian infrastructure, facilities, and utilities that will be 

the funding responsibility of the Department of Defense; (4) a plan 

to address all civilian requirements for the support of the 8,000 

Marines, their families, and the temporary construction workers on 

Guam; and (5) tangible progress towards the acquisition of lands 

on Guam required to support Marines Corps training ranges. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(249) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.31 billion for military construction and $591.0 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.38 billion for military construction and $591.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends moving $41.0 million of military construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area 

of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas Contingency 

Operations accounts and cutting $185.0 million in canceled or accelerated Air Force projects from the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these funding changes will 

allow for more efficient execution of CENTCOM military construction projects. 

The committee recommends fully authorizing the budget request of $158.009 million for the Air Force Technical Application Center 

at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida, but incrementally funding the 

project with an authorization of appropriations of $100.009 million. 

This action is taken without prejudice and merely to facilitate the 

most efficient use of taxpayer funds. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Air Force for fiscal year 2011. It would also authorize funds 

for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2011 to improve existing Air Force family 

housing units. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. This provision would also provide 

an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
250 

and family housing projects for the active-duty component of the 

Air Force. The State list contained in this report is the binding list 

of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2007 

project (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

fiscal year 2007 authorization for the replacement of 457 housing 

units at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho until October 1, 

2011, or the date of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(251) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$3.12 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, 

$124.9 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and $50.0 

million for family housing for the defense agencies, the Family 

Housing Improvement Fund, and the Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$3.2 billion for military construction, $124.9 million for chemical 

demilitarization construction, and $50.0 million for family housing 

for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee eliminated funding for the Hydrant Fuel System 

at Misawa Air Base in Japan as this does not support a current 

mission requirement. 

The committee recommends incrementally funding the North 

Campus Utility Plant at Ft. Meade, Maryland. This $219.0 million 

facility is fully authorized as a military construction project, but 

the level of funding requested cannot be reasonably executed in 

this fiscal year. 

The committee recommends incrementally funding the Ambulatory Care Center at Lackland Air Base, Texas. This $162.0 million 

facility remains fully authorized as a military construction project, 

but the level of funding requested cannot be reasonably executed 

in this fiscal year. 

The committee eliminated funding for the Health/Dental Replacement Clinic at Camp Carroll, Korea, since the Department 

was unable to provide sufficient information on their requirements 

and the location of the proposed clinic. 

The committee recommends a significant increase in the Energy 

Conservation Improvement Program. The committee is encouraged 

that there is a considerable number of meritorious programs competing for funding within this program. Projects must have a Savings-to-Investment ratio of 1.25 or higher to qualify for the program and a simple payback period of 10 years or less. 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
252 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. This provision would also provide an 

overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction 

and family housing projects for the defense agencies. The State list 

contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects 

authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2010 project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111–84; 123 

Stat. 2641) to authorize $68.5 million for the Aegis Ashore Test Facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii. This facility is 

necessary to permit the testing and demonstration of the Aegis 

Ashore system in time for its planned deployment in Phase 2 of the 

Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe, in the 

2015 timeframe. 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization 

construction, defense-wide (sec. 2411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the chemical demilitarization program for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2000 project (sec. 2412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

table in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 107–107; 115 

Stat. 835), as amended, increasing the authorization amount for an 

item relating to Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, from $492.0 

million to $746.0 million. 

Item of Special Interest 

Design standards for schools of the Department of Defense 

Education Activity 

The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2011 

and the future years defense program (FYDP) includes a significant 

increase in the amounts proposed for investment in the replacement of schools maintained and operated by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). The amount requested in fiscal 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
253 

year 2011 of $439.0 million, is 110 percent greater than the 

amount proposed for fiscal year 2011 in the FYDP that accompanied the budget request for fiscal year 2010. The amount of over 

$4.0 billion proposed for investment in the FYDP in the fiscal year 

2011 budget request represents an increase of almost $3.6 billion 

from the fiscal year 2010 FYDP for DODEA. The urgent requirement for additional funding for school facilities was revealed in a 

study requested by this committee in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), which assessed the condition of DODEA schools worldwide and the impact 

of underinvestment of funding for replacements and renovations. 

The committee strongly supports the Department’s commitment 

to the wide range of family programs that support the spouses and 

dependents of our military personnel. The committee has received 

testimony that many of these programs ranging from housing, child 

care, medical care, and education are major factors in achieving a 

positive quality of life and the decision of service members to remain in the military, despite the hardships of family separations 

and a high operations tempo. The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for establishing a priority to ensure the children 

of our military personnel are provided the best education opportunities in state-of-the-art facilities with the most current technology 

available. The committee also notes that the environment provided 

to students by the decisions and priorities established during the 

facility design process for each new school will have a significant 

impact on the quality of education and the scholastic experience for 

children for many years. 

Noting the substantial amount of design and construction to be 

accomplished in the next 5 years, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a formal process whereby the best 

practices and design innovations in public and private school construction can be incorporated into the design of DODEA schools. 

The Secretary shall ensure that the process encourages the use of 

sustainable designs, green building systems, acoustics management, student safety/security, and interactive technology to create 

a positive learning environment for children and an efficient teaching environment for faculty. The process should also determine 

what is required to provide children with disabilities the full range 

of education opportunities and to ensure these requirements are incorporated into each design. Finally, the process should ensure that 

the facility design will be able to easily adapt and respond to 

emerging requirements related to dynamic curricula and new 

teaching techniques and incorporate the feedback of teachers, parents, military community representatives, and local school administrators. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide this 

committee with a report not later than September 30, 2010, on the 

establishment of the process and the procedures adopted to meet 

the goals to provide outstanding schools for the children of our 

military personnel. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(255) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriation of $258.88 million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2011. The committee 

recommends an authorization of appropriation of $258.88 million 

for this program. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount 

equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 

2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $258.88 million for the United States’ contribution 

to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 

Program for fiscal year 2011. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(257) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $1.4 billion for military construction in fiscal year 2011 for 

National Guard and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends 

a total of $1.7 billion for military construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in 

the State list table included in this report. 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-bylocation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location 

basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2011. The authorized amounts are 

listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2011. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
258 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2011 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The State list contained 

in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 

at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2008 

projects (sec. 2607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2008 military construction projects until October 1, 2011, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2012, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Item of Special Interest 

Report on National Guard readiness centers 

The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2011 

contains 48 military construction projects for the Army National 

Guard (ARNG) in 32 states and territories totaling $874.0 million, 

a 105 percent increase from the amount requested in the budget 

request for fiscal year 2010. While the committee commends the 

Department of the Army for the necessary increase to address the 

severe backlog of work needed to upgrade Army National Guard facilities, the committee also notes that the amount for the ARNG included in the future years defense program (FYDP) accompanying 

the budget request for 2011 drops off significantly to a proposed 

amount of $354.0 million in fiscal year 2015, with less than $180.0 

million per year dedicated to the replacement or modernization of 

ARNG facilities. 

The committee notes that the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR) released in February 2010 outlined the requirement that the 

ARNG should be a force that can serve in an operational capacity, 

available, trained, and equipped for routine deployment as well as 

being a Homeland Response Force responsible for providing regional immediate response capability within the United States. The 

QDR stated, ‘‘[t]oday’s National Guard and Reserve men and 

women volunteer knowing that they will periodically serve on active duty. They also serve expecting to be . . . provided the right 

training and equipment to complete the mission. The Department 

will work to meet these expectations.’’ 

The ARNG relies on an inventory of 3,000 Readiness/Reserve 

Centers (formerly known as armories) spread over all 54 states/territories in local communities as the primary facilities to support 

unit training and local State operations. The committee is aware 

that 40 percent of ARNG facilities are over 50 years old and about 

40 percent of readiness centers do not adequately meet requirements for the support of training for the full range of mission esVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
259 

sential tasks. In addition, based on the current force structure of 

the ARNG, there exists a deficit in readiness centers of 19.5 million 

square feet, 30 percent of the total current inventory. Finally, 

many readiness centers are located in areas that are not ideally positioned for current populations and demographic trends, which affects recruiting and retention. All of these factors have a detrimental impact on the readiness of the ARNG at a time when the 

high operations tempo of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are 

already taking a significant toll on the ARNG. 

The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year 2011 contains 20 military construction projects totaling $294.0 million to 

add to or replace ARNG readiness centers. At this rate of investment, it would take over 30 years just to address the critical requirements in inadequate readiness centers. In addition, the committee is concerned that military construction funds may not be addressing the most urgent requirements in the ARNG due to local 

considerations and the need for state matching funds. Finally, the 

committee recognizes that the value and contribution of readiness 

centers to local communities may not be fully recognized by DOD. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to this committee no later than February 1, 2011 on the results and recommendations of an independent study which shall review the following: 

1) standards for facility size, configuration, and equipment 

for the range of missions and training supported by readiness 

centers; 

2) an assessment of each readiness center to objectively 

measure and determine the current facility condition and capability to support authorized manpower, unit training, and operations; 

3) an assessment of supporting facilities and functions to include equipment storage, classrooms, force protection, utilities, 

maintenance, administration, and proximity of support and 

training facilities; 

4) recommendations for the placement of new readiness centers, the relocation of existing readiness center, or a change in 

the mission of units assigned to readiness centers to ideally position the ARNG in current or projected population centers; 

5) recommendations for enhanced use of readiness centers to 

facilitate ARNG family support programs during deployments; 

6) an analysis of the feasibility, potential costs and benefits 

of shared use of ARNG readiness centers with other local, 

state, or federal agencies to improve response to local emergencies as well as the community support provided by readiness centers; and 

7) an investment strategy and proposed funding amounts in 

a prioritized project list to correct the most critical facility 

shortfalls across the inventory of ARNG readiness centers. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(261) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT 

ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $360.47 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The committee has authorized the amount requested for these activities in section 2701 of 

this Act. 

In addition, the budget requested an authorization of appropria- tions of $2.35 billion for implementation of the 2005 BRAC round. 

Section 2702 of this Act would authorize the full $2.35 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2011. 

The following table provides the specific amount authorized for 

each BRAC military construction project as well as the amount authorized for appropriations for all BRAC activities, including military construction, environmental costs, relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent change of station costs for 

military personnel, and other BRAC costs. 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 

1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded 

through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 

2005 (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for fiscal year 2011 that are required 

to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title of the report lists the 

specific amounts authorized at each location. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal year 2011 

that are required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision would also 

provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for BRAC military construction projects. The State list contained in this report is 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(263) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL 

MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects outside 

the United States (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with continued authority to use funds appropriated for operation and maintenance for military construction to 

meet temporary operational requirements during a time of declared 

war, national emergency, or contingency operation through September 2011. It would also extend the authority to that portion of 

the United States Africa Command area of responsibility formerly 

within the area of responsibility of the United States Central Command. 

This authority would enable the Department of Defense to provide basic facilities and infrastructure critical to military operations ahead of the regular annual authorization and appropriation 

process for construction projects. The proposal retains the current 

requirement to provide notice to Congress prior to the use of funds 

appropriated for operation and maintenance under the conditions 

set forth in subsection (a) of section 2808 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public 

Law 108–136). In addition, the Department of Defense still would 

not be able to proceed with execution of these projects until after 

a waiting period of 10 days, unless notification is by electronic 

means, in which case it is 7 days, following the delivery of pre-notification to the Congress. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Limitation on enhanced use leases of non-excess property 

(sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that 

enhanced use leases (EULs) for non-excess property may not be 

used to commit future-years Department of Defense (DOD) funds 

for long-term projects that have not received approval through the 

normal budgeting process. 

Section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, provides EUL authority to the military departments. Section 2823 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84) extended this authority to the Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(AFRH). In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

reviewed section 2823 and estimated that the provision would result in $115.0 million of direct spending over a 10-year period. This 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
264 

estimate was based on CBO’s view that AFRH would use EULs to 

leverage construction of new facilities that would be leased back 

over time through annual payments by AFRH. 

The committee does not believe that either section 2667 or section 2823 authorizes the use of EULs to commit DOD to the expenditure of future-years funds. In an October 13, 2009, letter, the 

Secretary of Defense agreed. The Secretary’s letter states: 

‘‘It is my understanding that there is speculation that AFRH 

might use this authority to acquire expensive facilities through 

long-term leases that would commit Department of Defense funds 

over periods of up to 50 years. While we do not know how DOD 

might use this authority in the future, I can say that it is not my 

intention to use the provision in that manner. If this authority is 

enacted, I can assure you that I would take steps to ensure that 

this new authority is used responsibly. In particular, this authority 

would not be used to commit future-years Department of Defense 

funds for long-term projects that have not received approval 

through the normal budgeting process. I am confident that DOD 

will sustain this position in the future.’’ 

The provision recommended by the committee would ensure that 

the military departments and AFRH are bound by the Secretary’s 

interpretation. 

Subtitle C—Energy Security 

Enhancement of energy security activities of the Department of Defense (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 173 of title 10, United States Code, to: (1) direct the Secretary 

of Defense to develop a comprehensive master plan for the Department of Defense (DOD), including baselines, measurement methods, metrics, milestones, and investments needed to meet DOD energy performance goals; (2) require the consideration of renewable 

forms of energy not only in new construction, but in repairs and 

renovations as well; and (3) require that specific consideration be 

given to roof-top solar thermal, photovoltaic, and energy reducing 

coating technologies; energy management control, supervisory control, and data acquisition systems; energy efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning systems; thermal windows and insulation 

systems; electric meters, and lighting, equipment, and appliances 

that are designed to use less electricity. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include in the 

first master plan developed pursuant to this provision a report on 

the specific steps that the Department has taken and plans to take 

to ensure that specific consideration is given in all new building 

construction and building renovation projects to roof-top energy 

savings and other technologies identified in the provision. The report shall address the feasibility and advisability of using solarpower collecting structures to shade vehicles at domestic military 

installations, including the Pentagon parking lot. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
265 

Permanent authority to accept and use landing fees charged 

to use of domestic airfields by civil aircraft (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision which would amend Section 377 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) to make permanent 

the pilot authority provided to the secretary of each military department to accept payments for the use of domestic military and 

shared use airfields by civil aircraft and to use those payments for 

the operation and maintenance of the airfield. 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances 

Land Conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision which would authorize 

the Secretary of the Army to convey without consideration to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

a parcel of land consisting of approximately 194 acres at Fort Knox, 

Kentucky for the establishment and operation of a state veterans 

home and future expansion of an adjacent state veterans cemetery. 

Land Conveyances, Naval Support Activity (West Bank), 

New Orleans, Louisiana (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision which would authorize 

the Secretary of the Navy to convey with consideration to Algiers 

Development District a parcel of land and improvements thereon 

comprising the Naval Support Activity in New Orleans, Louisiana, 

with certain exceptions. Consideration for this conveyance would be 

provided by the State of Louisiana, through the Algiers Development District, by delivering to the Secretary of the Navy new facilities, including the construction of a new Marine Forces Reserve 

Headquarters facility as required by Article 3 of the lease signed 

on September 30, 2008. 

Authority for use of unobligated funds for construction of a 

replacement fire station at Fort Belvoir, Virginia (sec. 

2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army to use previously appropriated Military Construction, Army, funds in conjunction with funds provided by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia to construct an Army standard-design, 

two-company fire station to meet Fort Belvoir’s current requirement. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle E—Reports 

Limitation on availability of funds pending reports regarding construction of a new outlying landing field (OLF) 

in North Carolina and Virginia (sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expense of funds for the study or development of a 

new outlying landing field in North Carolina or Virginia after fiscal 

year 2011 until the Secretary of the Navy provides the congressional defense committee with a report. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
266 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Further enhancements to Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance Program (sec. 2851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374), as amended by section 1001 of 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5), which requires the government to purchase all applicant 

homes when the home value is below the mortgage payoff amount. 

This provision would allow the government to pay the difference 

between the price for which an applicant sells their home and the 

mortgage payoff amount, rather than the current requirement for 

the government to purchase the home for the entire mortgage. 

Lease of Airborne and Special Operations Museum facility 

(sec. 2852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

lease of portions of the Airborne and Special Operations Museum 

to the Airborne and Special Operations Museum Foundation for 

uses consistent with the purpose of the museum. 

Sense of the Senate on the proposed extension of the Alaska 

Railroad corridor across Federal land in Alaska (sec. 

2853) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force should explore means of accommodating this 

expansion using existing authorities that will not adversely impact 

military missions, operations, and training. 

Sense of Congress on military housing for the Air Force 

(sec. 2854) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Air Force should use 

existing authority to carry out certain solicitations for military 

housing projects consistent with the goal of improving homes for 

Air Force personnel and their families by the end of 2010. 

Items of Special Interest 

Application of force protection and anti-terrorism standards 

to gates and entry points on military installations 

The committee recognizes the importance of anti-terrorism and 

force protection (AT/FP) measures for Department of Defense installations and facilities. Main gates and entry control points (ECP) 

are the first line of defense on a military installation to guard 

against intrusion and potential vehicle-borne terrorist attacks. The 

committee notes that a report received on June 18, 2009, in response to section 2815 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) on the 

application of force protection and anti-terrorism standards to gates 

and entry points on military installations determined that of the 

1,786 ECPs on major military installations, 746 have requirements 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
267 

to install permanent AT/FP measures, 1,078 have other facility requirements, and 938 require the installation of permanent equipment to meet AT/FP standards. The total estimated amount required to correct these critical deficiencies is $3.2 billion. 

The committee notes that the requirements identified in the report apply to 231 major military installations and do not include 

over 5,000 other military sites and installations, many of which 

support critical national security activities and reserve component 

installations. 

The committee has responded to the concern of inadequate funding for the construction of permanent facilities and equipment to 

ensure compliance with AT/FP standards by adding eight military 

construction projects totaling $56.0 million to address critical force 

protection requirements. Timely execution of these requirements is 

necessary to protect the safety and welfare of service members and 

their families as well as vital military resources and weapon systems. 

The committee expects the Department of Defense (DOD) to include, in response to this report, adequate funding levels in the fiscal year 2012 budget and future-years defense program to address 

the significant shortfalls in the compliance of main gates and ECPs 

with AT/FP standards at all military installations supporting critical missions and resources. The committee also expects the Department of Defense to verify both designed and installed AT/FP 

measure meet all DOD minimum AT/FP standards for installations 

and buildings. 

Report on U.S. Special Operations Command military construction requirements 

The committee is concerned about the adequacy of U.S. Special 

Operations Command’s (USSOCOM) military construction program 

and its ability to keep pace with the mandated growth in U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee notes that the Commander 

of U.S. Special Operations Command has identified 16 unfunded 

military construction projects for fiscal year 2011 totaling $164.1 

million. Additionally, the committee is concerned about the status 

of deteriorating facilities utilized by special operations personnel, 

many of which have been occupied for decades with minimal investment in their sustainment and modernization. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 

90 days after enactment of this Act on the adequacy of 

USSOCOM’s military construction program. The report shall include: (1) a detailed description of USSOCOM’s military construction, sustainment, and modernization programs as anticipated over 

the future years defense program, (2) an assessment of the adequacy of USSOCOM’s military construction, sustainment, and modernization programs to support the mandated growth of special operations forces and replace or modernize its oldest facilities, (3) a 

description of how USSOCOM prioritizes military construction requirements, (4) a description of how the Department differentiates 

between Major Force Program–2 military construction requirements for General-Purpose Forces and Major Force Program–11 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
268 

military construction requirements for special operations forces, 

and (5) any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(269) 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary 

The President’s Overseas Contingency Operations budget request 

for fiscal year 2011 included $1.26 billion for military construction 

projects in Afghanistan. The table in section 4504 describes the 

specific projects and recommended adjustments for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends moving $101.5 million of military 

construction projects in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) 

area of responsibility from the base budget to the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts and cutting $71.0 million in canceled or 

accelerated projects from the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts. The committee believes these funding changes will allow for 

more efficient execution of CENTCOM military construction 

projects. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$1.0 billion in overseas contingency military construction projects 

for the Army for fiscal year 2011. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$150.8 million in Overseas Contingency Operations military construction projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2011. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(271) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2011, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in three 

categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); 

(2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other defense activities. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department totaled $17.7 billion, a 7.4 percent increase above the 

fiscal year 2011 regular appropriated level. Of the total amount requested: 

(1) $11.2 billion is for NNSA, of which: 

(a) $7.0 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $2.7 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; 

(c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $448.3 million is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.6 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; and 

(3) $878.2 million is for other defense activities. 

The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy supply. The committee recommends $17.7 billion for atomic energy defense activities, the amount of the budget request. 

Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $11.2 billion for NNSA, of which; 

(a) $7.0 billion is for weapons activities, an increase of $6.2 million above the budget request; (b) $2.7 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, the amount of the budget request; (c) $1.1 billion is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and (d) $448.3 million is for the Office of the Administrator, 

the amount of the budget request; 

(2) $5.6 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities, 

the amount of the budget request; and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
272 

(3) $878.2 million for other defense activities, the amount of 

the budget request. 

The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a reduc- tion of $6.2 million. 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $11.2 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2011 for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to 

carry out programs necessary to national security, an increase of 

$6.2 million above the budget request. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $7.0 billion for weapons activities, an increase of $6.2 million above the budget request. The committee authorizes the following activities: $1.9 billion for directed 

stockpile work; $1.7 billion for campaigns; $1.9 billion for readiness 

in the technical base and facilities; $248.0 million for the secure 

transportation asset; $233.1 million for nuclear counterterrorism 

incident response; $119.0 million for facilities and infrastructure 

recapitalization; $105.5 million for site stewardship; $844.3 million 

for safeguards and security; and $20.0 million for science, technology, and engineering capability. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $1.9 billion for directed stockpile work, a decrease of $25.0 million below the amount of the budget 

request. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned life extension programs. This 

account also includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, feasibility studies, weapons dismantlement and disposal, 

training, and support equipment. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million for the 

W–76 life extension program. The committee fully supports the life 

extension program for the W–76, the most numerous of all the nuclear systems in the stockpile. The committee is aware, however, 

that because of technical issues, the program is behind schedule 

and will not need all of the requested funds in 2011. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in management, technology, and production for increased surveillance activities. The committee is concerned that in spite of the substantial 

increases in the NNSA weapons activities account, the budget does 

not fully support the enhanced surveillance efforts. 

The committee recommends a $20.0 million decrease in plutonium infrastructure sustainment as excess to requirements. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.7 billion for campaigns, a decrease of $2.0 million below the amount of the budget request. The 

campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving the 

three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the 

weapons production plants. Each campaign is focused on a specific 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
273 

activity to support and maintain the nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts form the scientific underpinning of the Department of Energy’s annual certification that the stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without 

nuclear weapons testing. The committee is very concerned about 

the preliminary decision of the NNSA to eliminate the readiness 

campaign with the exception of tritium readiness. The readiness 

campaign provides foundational support for key activities in the 

nuclear stockpile. If the NNSA decides to eliminate the readiness 

campaign the committee directs NNSA to identify clearly how and 

where these foundational activities will be maintained. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in National Ignition Facility (NIF) campaign for diagnostics, cryogenics 

and experimental support. The committee wants to insure that 

there are adequate diagnostics to fully utilize and support the experimental capability of the NIF. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in the 

readiness campaign for tritium readiness. The reduction for tritium 

readiness takes into account a large carryover balance resulting 

from contracting delays and problems with the tritium producing 

bars. 

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $1.9 billion for readiness in the technical base (RTBF), an increase of $30.0 million above the budget 

request for operations of facilities. This account funds facilities and 

infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding for new facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to support deferred maintenance at the Pantex plant. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to support deferred maintenance at the Y–12 facility. The committee recommends an increase 

for the PF–4 facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory to address 

the active ventilation system issues that have been identified by 

the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million for the 

Kansas City Plant specifically for the Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) plan, the plan 

to acquire a replacement facility for the existing Kansas City Plant. 

The Kansas City Plant replacement is being managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). The new facility will be built 

by a private development company, but will be owned by a Kansas 

City redevelopment authority, which will in turn lease it to the development company to sublease to GSA to sub-sub lease to NNSA 

for the Kansas City operations. The committee is aware of cost estimates for the new complex ranging from $500.0 million to $673.0 

million with an estimated life cycle cost of $4.7 billion. The committee notes that the budget request for KCRIMS includes funds 

for ‘‘unique facility upgrades for utility and interior requirements.’’ 

The committee questions why funds are needed for upgrades and 

unique requirements at a facility that is being built to NNSA specifications. 

The basis for the decision to build the new facility using GSA/ 

third party approach rather than the normal government construcVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
274 

tion line item approach was that the life cycle costs would be less 

using the GSA/third party approach. The committee is concerned 

that NNSA may be supplementing the construction costs. The committee also notes that ground breaking for the new building has 

been delayed until August 2011. For future budget submissions, 

the committee directs the NNSA to specifically identify funds for 

the KCRIMS project as a separate element of the RTBF and the 

purpose for which they will be spent. 

The committee continues to believe that replacing the existing 

Chemical and Metallurgical Research facility is essential but that 

the new Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement 

(CMRR) facility has many unresolved issues including the appropriate size of the facility. CMRR will be a category I facility supporting pit operations in building PF–4. Now that the Nuclear Posture Review is completed the NNSA and the Department of Defense (DOD) are in a better position to ensure that the facility is 

appropriately sized. Elsewhere in this act the committee has recommended a provision to require construction project baselines and 

to track cost and schedule issues. The committee is very concerned 

that the NNSA follow the DOE 413 order series and project management and guidance. The NNSA is also directed to conduct a 

true independent cost estimate for the CMRR Nuclear Facility, 

phase III of the CMRR project. The committee is concerned that 

the phase III project is being divided into multiple sub-projects. 

Notwithstanding this management approach the committee directs 

the CMRR baseline to reflect all phases and subprojects for the 

purposes of the cost and schedule baseline provision and to be accounted for as a single project. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for the 

Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) refurbishment, 

Project 09–D–007. The LANSCE supports the only machine capable 

of performing nuclear cross section measurements of weapons materials to support the resolution of significant findings investigations. LANSCE refurbishment would also further enhance the ability of the NNSA to perform surveillance on the stockpile. The committee recognizes that there is considerable deferred maintenance 

at the LANSCE facility that will need to be addressed as the final 

design for the LANSCE refurbishment is determined. In the interim the committee authorizes the NNSA to use such funds in fiscal year 2011 as needed to maintain the facility while the design 

is finalized. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the 

high explosive pressing facility at the Pantex Plant, Project 08–D– 

802 to accelerate construction of the facility. This new high explosive facility is needed for life extension programs and will provide 

a modern, safe, working environment for these high risk operations. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs 

The committee recommends $2.7 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program, the same as the budget request. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has management 

and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
275 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as fol- lows: $359.6 million for nonproliferation and verification research 

and development, an increase of $8.0 million; $151.9 million for 

nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of $4.0 million; $610.1 million for international nuclear materials production 

and cooperation, an increase of $20.0 million above the amount of 

the budget request; $1.0 billion for fissile materials disposition, a 

decrease of $20.0 million; and $554.8 million for the global threat 

reduction initiative, a decrease of $4.0 million. 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The committee recommends $359.6 million for nonproliferation and verification research and development, an increase of $8.0 million in operations and maintenance. The committee recommends 

$2.0 million for increased forensics capabilities, international safeguards technologies, nuclear detonation systems, seismic monitoring, and proliferation detection technologies, and $6.0 million for 

the joint DOE Air Force space situational awareness activities. 

The committee is particularly concerned about the long-term 

ability of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. 

Currently, the fragile U.S. forensic research and development capabilities of DOE and its laboratories underpin the capabilities of all 

the federal agencies dealing with nuclear forensics and attribution. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been assigned 

responsibility to work with the various Executive Branch agencies 

to coordinate technical nuclear forensics and attribution responsibilities. As part of that responsibility, DHS, working with the 

other agencies, is developing requirements and identifying the capabilities needed to detect, locate, render safe, to attribute a nuclear event, and to identify gaps in the necessary capabilities. 

Nonproliferation and international security 

The committee recommends $151.9 million for nonproliferation 

and international security, a decrease of $4.0 million for Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP). The committee notes 

that the GIPP has significant prior-year funds. 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation 

The committee recommends $610.1 million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation, an increase of $20.0 

million above the budget request for the megaports program. The 

committee notes that the budget request for megaports for fiscal 

year 2011 is 35 percent less than the amount provided in fiscal 

year 2010. The megaports program is an important part of the second line of defense to detect nuclear or radiological material being 

shipped clandestinely into the United States. Because there is a 

backlog of countries with signed megaports agreements the additional funding can be promptly executed. 

Fissile materials disposition 

The committee recommends $1.0 billion for fissile materials, a 

decrease of $20.0 million. The committee notes that the United 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
276 

States and Russia, after many years of negotiations, have finally 

signed a new protocol to the Plutonium Management and Disposition agreement to allow each country to disposition 34 metric tons 

of excess weapons grade plutonium. The committee continues to 

support the fissile materials disposition program as an important 

part of the overall nuclear nonproliferation program. The committee recommends a $40.0 million reduction to the pit 

disassembly and conversion facility (PDCF), Project 99–D–141, and 

a $20.0 million increase in the U.S. plutonium disposition program 

operations and maintenance account. This $20.0 million transfer 

from the construction line item to the operations and maintenance 

line reflects a recent NNSA decision to partner with the Environmental Management (EM) program. The EM program and NNSA 

plan to combine the PDCF project and the EM plutonium preparation project into a single joint project managed by the NNSA. This 

new project will continue to be located at the Savannah River Site 

but instead of a stand-alone project the pit disassembly process will 

be located in the K-area. This funding shift will allow the NNSA 

to finalize plans and to begin the new project. The $40.0 million in 

the PDCF project can be used for preliminary engineering and design for the new joint project. The committee notes the new project 

will be included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request as a construction line item. The committee directs NNSA to treat the combined project as a new construction project with a new scope, 

schedule and cost baseline using the DOE 413 project management 

orders and process. 

While the committee supports the decision to combine the EM 

plutonium and NNSA plutonium disposition efforts, the committee 

urges the NNSA and EM to proceed expeditiously with the combined project. The years of delay in deciding how to prepare plutonium for feedstock for the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility has severely limited the amount of feedstock that will be available when the MOX facility is ready to begin operations. As a result the MOX facility will either start late, start and then stop, or 

start and then operate at an inefficient rate of production. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator 

of the NNSA to provide quarterly updates to the congressional defense committees on the progress of this joint program until the fiscal year 2012 budget is submitted to Congress. 

The committee recommends $113.0 million for the Russian fissile 

materials disposition program, the amount of the budget request. 

The committee notes that the budget request includes funds to continue the joint gas reactor technology demonstration program with 

Russia. The gas reactor is a more efficient burner of excess plutonium than either conventional nuclear power reactors or fast reactors, which Russia currently plans to use to disposition plutonium. 

The committee notes that Russia and the United States jointly 

fund this effort and that Russian support for the program generally 

exceeds the U.S. contribution. 

Global threat reduction initiative 

The committee recommends $554.8 million for the global threat 

reduction initiative (GTRI), a decrease of $4.0 million for gap material. The budget request for the GTRI for fiscal year 2012 is subVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
277 

stantially higher than the amount available for fiscal year 2010, 

particularly for the nuclear and radiological material removal program, part of the Global Lockdown initiative. The committee supports this effort of secure within 4 years, vulnerable nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb or in an improvised nuclear 

devise. The committee directs the NNSA to provide quarterly reports, at the end of each quarter of fiscal year 2011, describing the 

projects, including the cost and schedule for each project that has 

been implemented that quarter. 

Plutonium reactor shutdown program 

The committee notes that the plutonium reactor shutdown program has been successfully completed and that the last Russian reactor producing plutonium is now shut down. The success of this 

program is a remarkable example of cooperation among Russia, the 

United States, and the international community. The committee 

congratulates the NNSA employees and contractors who worked so 

diligently on this major effort. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $248.0 million for the secure transportation asset (STA), the amount of the budget request. The secure transportation asset is responsible for the transportation of 

nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and components, and other 

materials requiring safe and secure transport. In the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Bill, Senate Report Number 110–335, the committee directed the STA to include in its budget submittal for fiscal year 

2010 a break out of the lease expenses for each leased facility and 

the expenses for each minor construction project. The STA decided 

not to pursue a third-party financing option. If the STA resumes 

consideration of any third-party option, the committee expects STA 

to fully notify Congress of such arrangements in advance of executing any leases. 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response 

The committee recommends $233.1 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, the amount of the budget request. 

Facilities and infrastructure 

The committee recommends $119.0 million for the facilities and 

infrastructure program (FIRP), an increase of $25.0 million above 

the amount of the budget request. FIRP was established to address 

the backlog of deferred maintenance at NNSA facilities. While the 

FIRP has been successful, the committee continues to be concerned 

that as the FIRP comes to a close, routine maintenance of facilities, 

utilities and infrastructure upgrades, such as electrical system and 

road improvement, will once again be deferred to address programmatic demands. The committee recommends the additional 

funds to address the deferred maintenance recapitalization 

projects. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
278 

Site stewardship 

The committee recommends $105.5 million for site stewardship, 

the amount of the budget request. 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $871.6 million for safeguards and security, the amount of the budget request. 

Naval reactors 

The committee recommends $1.1 billion for naval reactors, the 

amount of the budget request. The committee cautions the naval 

reactors program in the management of its minor construction 

projects not to break down projects that would otherwise be line 

item construction projects, into multiple minor construction 

projects. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $428.3 million for the Office of the 

Administrator, the amount of the budget request. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $5.6 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year 2011 

for defense environmental cleanup. The committee notes that the 

expenditure rate for the funds received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Public Law 111–5) is 

low. On the other hand the DOE office of Environmental Management (EM) would be at risk of not meeting a number of milestones 

in various compliance agreements without these funds. The committee notes that the original plan was to obligate and expend the 

ARRA funds over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The committee looks 

forward to the report on the results achieved with the ARRA funds 

when the Government Accountability Office submits it final report 

at the conclusion of the program. 

Waste Treatment Plant 

The committee has been closely following the design review that 

EM is carrying out at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at the Department of Energy Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The 

purpose of this review is to simplify the operations of the 

pretreatment facility. One aspect of the review is a reassessment 

of the material at risk (MAR), to determine if the level of radioactivity in the waste to be treated is in fact as high as was previously 

assumed. This review will also look at the application of the integrated safety management process and determine if certain safety 

systems could be downgraded if the MAR is modified. The committee remains concerned that the appropriate safety analysis be 

performed to ensure that there is an analytical basis for any determinations as to whether a system is safety class or safety significant. As the DOE guidance says ‘‘a successful safety design depends on the quality of the safety analysis and on engineering 

judgment in the transformation of this guidance to the final design.’’ The committee expects the analysis for this very important 

and very expensive facility to be of high quality. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
279 

The Defense Nuclear Safety Board (DNFSB) has a statutory responsibility to oversee operational nuclear safety aspects of the 

WTP project. Part of this responsibility includes oversight of the facility construction and design to ensure that the design meets DOE 

industry standards and guidance for nuclear safety. The committee 

notes that the EM program has committed to provide to the 

DNFSB the documentation and safety analysis to allow the DNFSB 

to carry out its responsibilities effectively. The committee also 

notes that EM has established an independent review panel to look 

at the technical, safety, near- and long-term operational effects, 

and cost and schedule implications of any changes or revisions. The 

committee supports this decision. 

The committee continues to expect this whole review and design 

change process to be carried out expeditiously but also thoroughly 

and to be kept informed by both DOE and the DNFSB as the effort 

progresses. 

The committee further notes that the DOE is considering some 

changes to the management approach to the WTP project and 

urges the DOE to ensure that the site retains project management 

responsibility or remains as integrally involved as possible in the 

management as the site must be responsible for the long-term operation of the facility and the tank farms. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$878.2 million for other defense activities, the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends $464.2 million for health, 

safety, and security, the amount of the budget request; $188.6 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget request; 

$88.2 million for Nuclear Energy, defense related infrastructure for 

the Idaho site security, the amount of the budget request; $118.0 

million for departmental administration, the amount of the budget 

request; $11.9 million for acquisition workforce improvements, the 

amount of the budget request; and $6.4 million for the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals, the amount of the budget request. 

The committee notes that the departmental administration accounts represents 33 percent of the overall departmental administration funds and is used as offset for those funds. It is proportional to the amount of support in the administration used to support the Office of Environmental Management and other defense 

activities. The committee notes that the funding for acquisition 

workforce is a new account. The committee fully supports improvements to the acquisition workforce but wishes to ensure that this 

new account represents a similar proportionality as represented in 

the defense related departmental administration funding. The committee directs the Secretary to inform the committee as to how 

these funds will be utilized prior to any obligation or expenditures. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
280 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Assessment of adequacy of budget requests with respect to 

maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to include with the budget materials for the NNSA budget 

request an assessment of the adequacy of the budget request. The 

Administrator would be required to assess whether the budget requested for that year and the future-years nuclear security program for the weapons activities at the NNSA meets the programmatic requirements set out in the NNSA program plan documents. These documents include the annual stockpile stewardship 

plan known as the green book. The Administrator would be required to make this assessment in coordination with the Secretary 

of Defense and the Commander of the United States Strategic 

Command. 

Biennial plan on modernization and refurbishment of the 

nuclear security complex (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section to the Atomic Energy Defense Act (division D of Public Law 

107–314 as amended) to add a new section and change the requirement for the biennial plan on modernization and refurbishment of 

the nuclear security complex to require the plan in even-numbered 

years from the current requirement for the plan in odd-numbered 

years. In addition, the provision would require the plan to be submitted with the plan for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile. 

Future-years defense environmental management plan (sec. 

3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy to submit an annual 5 year environmental 

management budget plan for defense funded environmental management activities. This plan would be due with the annual budget 

request for the Environmental Management (EM) program. The 

committee believes that the EM budget should include a budget estimate for the 4 years following the year for which the budget request is made. Five year budget planning will allow the committee 

and the communities around the EM sites to better understand the 

long-term costs, plans, and schedule for the EM program. The committee encourages the Secretary to incorporate the plan into the 

annual budget justification documents. 

Notification of cost overruns for certain Department of Energy projects (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to establish a cost and schedule baseline for each nuclear 

weapon stockpile life extension program. The provision would also 

direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a cost and schedule 

baseline for each defense funded construction project and for each 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
281 

defense environmental management project managed under the 

Department of Energy project management protocols with a value 

in excess of $100.0 million. Each required cost and schedule baseline would be submitted to the congressional defense committee no 

later than 30 days after it is developed. If the cost of any project 

exceeds 125 percent of the cost baseline or if the time to complete 

the project will exceed 125 percent of the schedule baseline, the Administrator or the Secretary as the case may be shall notify the 

congressional defense committees within 30 days after any such determination is made. 

Within 90 days of a cost or schedule breach the Administrator or 

the Secretary as applicable shall notify the congressional defense 

committees if the project will be terminated or continued. If the 

project is continued the Administrator or the Secretary as applicable shall certify that a revised cost and schedule baseline is in 

place, that there is no alternative available other than to continue 

the project and still meet mission needs, and that a management 

structure is in place adequate to manage and control the cost and 

schedule of the project in the future. 

Authority to purchase or lease aircraft necessary to support 

the mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to obligate such funds as are necessary to purchase or 

lease aircraft to support NNSA missions. 

Limitation on use of funds for establishment of centers of 

excellence in countries outside of the former Soviet 

Union (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program funds from being obligated 

to establish a center of excellence in any country outside of the 

former Soviet Union (FSU) until such time as the Administrator of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) submits to 

the congressional defense committees a report on the particular 

center to be established. The report shall identify the country 

where the center will be established, the purpose for which the center will be used, the agreement under which the center will operate, and the funding plan for the center including any cost-sharing 

arrangement. 

The committee supports the continued efforts of the NNSA nonproliferation programs in countries outside of the FSU but would 

like to understand in more detail plans for new centers as these 

plans evolve. 

The committee also supports the effort to secure the most vulnerable nuclear material in 4 years, but recognizes that this is a significant challenge that will require close interagency cooperation to 

be successful. The committee notes that the Department of Defense 

and the NNSA, have a long and productive history of cooperation 

in threat reduction programs, and urge them to continue this close 

collaboration in the accelerated program to secure vulnerable nuclear materials. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
282 

Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy for appointment of certain scientific, engineering, and technical 

personnel (sec. 3117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4601(c)(1) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (division D of 

Public Law 107–314 as amended) to extend the hiring authority for 

scientific, engineering, and technical personnel for 5 years. This authority expires September 30, 2011. 

Extension of authority of Secretary of Energy to enter into 

transactions to carry out certain research projects (sec. 

3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 646(g)(10) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95–91 as amended) by extending the authority to carry out 

research projects using other transaction authority through September 30, 2015. 

Extension of deadline for cooperation with the Russian Federation with respect to development of nuclear materials protection, control, and accounting program (sec. 

3119) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

materials protection control and accounting (MPC&A) program 

work with the Russian Federation from 10 years to 14 years. The 

MPC&A program was established to work with the Russian Federation to increase accountability for and to protect fissile materials from being lost or stolen. The plan for MPC&A was to complete the work and transition the long-term sustainment activities 

to the Russian Federation by 2013. Section 3156 of the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 

Law 107–319) established this 10 year time frame. Since 2003, the 

scope of work with Russian Federation has expanded and an additional 4 years is needed to allow the work to be completed and fully 

transition sustainment activities to the Russian Federation. The 

provision would allow the National Nuclear Security Administration until 2017 to complete the MPC&A work. 

Repeal of sunset provision for modification of minor construction threshold for plant projects (sec. 3120) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3118 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) to modify permanently the definition of 

minor construction projects also known as general plant projects, to 

include any projects under $10.0 million. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) has had 2 years to utilize temporary authority for minor construction projects below $10.0 million threshold. Previously the minor construction threshold was 

$5.0 million. The provision would preserve the requirement to provide a notification to the congressional defense committees before 

any minor construction project with a value in excess of $5.0 is implemented. The committee cautions the DOE not to have multiple 

related minor construction projects or segment a construction 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
283 

project into multiple minor construction projects to avoid the requirement for line item authorization for construction projects. 

Extension of deadline for transfer of parcels of land to be 

conveyed to Los Alamos County, New Mexico, and held 

in trust for the pueblo of San Ildefonso (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

deadline for transfer of certain parcels of land to the county of Los 

Alamos, New Mexico and held in trust for the pueblo of San 

Ildefonso from November 26, 2010, to September 30, 2022. Certain 

parcels of the land to be transferred will require environmental remediation before it can be transferred. This extension will allow 

the Department of Energy additional time to complete the environmental remediation. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Department of Energy energy parks program (sec. 3131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Energy to establish energy parks at former defense 

nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy. Former defense nuclear facilities could provide opportunities to demonstrate and otherwise support new energy technologies being developed and demonstrated by the DOE non-defense program elements and industry. 

The provision would direct the Secretary to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the implementation of this authority should the Secretary 

decide to pursue the energy parks concept at former defense facilities. The Secretary should also include in the report any recommendations for legislation that might be needed to implement 

energy parks. 

The committee does not support energy parks at the present time 

at defense nuclear facilities but would entertain proposals to establish such facilities on a case by case basis if an energy park would 

have no impact on national security activities. 

Reclassification of certain appropriations for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reclassify fiscal years 2009 and 2010 appropriations under the heading ‘‘Weapons Activities’’ to allow funds previously authorized and appropriated for use in a construction project to support the refurbishment of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), Project 

‘‘09–D–007, LANSCE Reinvestment PED Los Alamos National Lab, 

Los Alamos, NM’’, to be used for capital equipment acquisition, installation, and associated design funds for LANSCE. 

Items of Special Interest 

Department of Energy National Laboratories 

The National laboratories of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

are the premier national scientific research entities in the U.S. 

Government and arguably in the United States. These laboratories 

were specifically established to support national security missions. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
284 

As federally funded research and development centers these laboratories are available for use, under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), to all federal agencies. 

In addition, the DOE labs have authority to partner with private 

industry, through cooperative research and development agreements, to enhance the technical competitiveness of U.S. industry. 

The committee notes that each year the DOE laboratories earn a 

large percentage of the R&D 100 awards. A robust work for others 

program contributes to the ability of the laboratories to attract and 

retain the world’s best scientists and engineers. The work for others program contributes to the national missions of the DOE, and 

also enables other federal agencies including the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the intelligence 

community to draw on the unique qualities and capabilities at the 

DOE laboratories. The committee urges the Departments of Defense and Energy to identify and resolve any issues under section 

804 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to ensure that DOD can 

continue to utilize the unique technical skills and capabilities of 

the DOE laboratories. 

Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System 

The accounting, management, control, identification, reporting 

and tracking of nuclear materials, including fissile and special nuclear materials is an important responsibility of the United States 

Government. The Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards 

System (NMMSS), operated jointly by the Department of Energy 

(DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is the U.S. 

State System of Accounting for the Control of Nuclear Materials for 

reporting to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Different reporting requirements, standards, and guidelines apply to different 

types of materials and whether the materials are owned by NRC 

licensees or the DOE. The committee is concerned that as a result 

of these various differences NMMSS is not receiving information on 

all U.S. material and all material in the United States, including 

material scheduled for disposal or disposition. The committee urges 

the Secretary of Energy to develop, with the Chairman of the NRC, 

a reporting methodology to ensure that the NMMSS includes information on all fissile and special nuclear materials. The committee 

also urges the Secretary of Energy to reestablish the Office of Plutonium Uranium and Special Material Inventory or assign responsibility to an existing organization that can serve as a central point 

in the DOE that can be fully cognizant of all fissile and special nuclear material. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(285) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY 

BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$33.6 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(DNFSB), an increase of $5.0 million above the budget request. 

The DNFSB is the independent oversight entity for operational 

nuclear safety at the Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear 

facilities. The work of the DNFSB ensures that as a self-regulated 

entity, the DOE has an external oversight body, which although 

not a regulatory body, can bring to the attention of the DOE issues 

dealing with operational nuclear safety. 

The committee is concerned that with several major new nuclear 

facilities planned, including the uranium processing facility, the 

chemical and metallurgical research replacement facility, as well as 

new work on plutonium pit disassembly and plutonium oxide production, the DNFSB will need additional technical staff to review 

fully the operational nuclear safety for the new projects. 

The committee notes that the efforts of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at the new highly enriched uranium 

storage facility at the Y–12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to 

work with the DNFSB to identify and to resolve safety issues early 

on in the design process was a successful model. The committee 

hopes that the NNSA will follow this model as they design and construct the new facilities. 

The committee continues to find the periodic reports submitted 

to the congressional defense committees a useful early indicator of 

the status of various issues at DOE facilities and thanks the 

DNFSB for the reports. 

Currently the DNFSB has been heavily focused on design 

changes that the DOE has proposed to the Waste Treatment Plant 

(WTP) at the DOE Hanford facility. While the committee supports 

efforts to improve the overall operability and reliability of the WTP, 

this facility must also operate safely and for many years to process 

all of the waste at Hanford. As a result, the proposed changes must 

be understood and analyzed from both throughput and operational 

safety perspectives. The committee urges the DOE to continue to 

conduct the analysis necessary to justify the changes to the WTP. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(287) 

TITLE XXXIII—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(289) 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in 

accordance with the tables in division D of the bill, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by agency heads to 

commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis 

of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based selection procedures in accordance 

with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, 

United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(291) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

Procurement (sec. 4101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

I of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 4001. 

The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for procurement programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either 

increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for procurement 

for overseas contingency operations programs and indicates those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(293) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

II of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 4001. 

The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for research, development, test, and evaluation programs and indicates those programs 

for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas 

contingency operations (sec. 4202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency operations 

programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(295) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

III of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 4001. 

The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for operation and 

maintenance programs and indicates those programs for which the 

committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for operation 

and maintenance for overseas contingency operations programs and 

indicates those programs for which the committee either increased 

or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(297) 

TITLE XLIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Other authorizations (sec. 4401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XIV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for other authorizations programs and indicates those programs for which the 

committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations 

(sec. 4402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for other authorizations for overseas contingency operations programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or 

decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(299) 

TITLE XLV—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military construction (sec. 4501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in titles 

XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act, in accordance 

with the requirements of section 4001. The provision also displays 

the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 

budget request for military construction programs and indicates 

those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011 

project listing (sec. 4502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XXVII of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for 2005 base 

realignment and closure round fiscal year 2011 project listing programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either 

increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations 

(sec. 4503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XIX of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for military construction for overseas contingency operations programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or 

decreased the requested amounts. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
300 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(301) 

TITLE XVI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 

4601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XXXI of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 

4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2011 budget request for Department 

of Energy national security programs and indicates those programs 

for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Energy may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Energy) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

By letter dated March 8, 2010, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 

for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred to the Committee on Armed Services on March 10, 

2010 as Executive Communication 5026. 

Executive Communication 5026 is available for review at the 

committee. 

Committee Action 

The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original bill 

and a series of original bills for the Department of Defense, military construction and Department of Energy authorizations by 

voice vote. 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 passed unanimously by roll call vote, 18– 

10, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, 

McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, 

Kaufman, Brown and Collins. Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
302 

Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Burr, and 

Vitter. 

The 12 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to the 

bill which were considered during the course of the subcommittee 

and full committee markups are as follows: 

Airland Subcommittee: 

1. MOTION: To report the recommendations of the Airland Subcommittee, as amended, to the full Committee. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 14–0. 

In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, 

Begich, Burris, Kaufman, Thune, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 

Brown, and Burr. 

Opposed: None. 

Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee: 

2. MOTION: To defer to the full Committee for its consideration, 

the two amendments requiring reports on Cuba and Venezuela respectively. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 8–5. 

In Favor: Senators Byrd, Reed, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Udall of Colorado, Bingaman, and Kaufman. 

Opposed: Senators LeMieux, Graham, Wicker, Brown, and Collins. 

Not Voting: Senator Burr. 

Full Committee: 

1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed session because classified information will be discussed. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 19–9. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson 

of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, 

Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, 

Wicker, and Burr. 

Opposed: Senators Webb, McCaskill, Kaufman, McCain, Thune, 

LeMieux, Brown, Vitter, and Collins. 

2. MOTION: To amend Motion #3 to apply the $1 billion reduction in earmarks to the national deficit. 

VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 7–16. 

In Favor: Senators Bayh, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Kaufman, 

Thune, LeMieux, and Brown. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, 

Nelson of Nebraska, Webb, Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, 

McCain, Inhofe, Burr, Vitter, and Collins. 

Not Voting: Senators Lieberman, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, 

and Wicker. 

3. MOTION: To cut $1 billion in earmarks and restore $1 billion 

in funding to the Iraq Security Forces Fund. 

VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 10–15. 

In Favor: Senators McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Thune, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, 

Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, 

Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, and Collins. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
303 

Not Voting: Senators Lieberman, Graham, and Wicker. 

4. MOTION: To require that space arms control agreements and 

international agreements regarding the operation of military space 

systems be entered into only through the treaty making power. 

VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 11–14. 

In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 

Graham, Thune, LeMieux, Wicker, Brown, Burr, and Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Nelson of Florida, Nelson 

of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, 

Begich, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman. 

Not Voting: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, and Collins. 

5. MOTION: To establish a commission to study and report on 

environmental exposures at military installations, as modified. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 22–6. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson 

of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of 

Colorado, Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, McCain, 

Chambliss, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, and Burr. 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Graham, Thune, Vitter, and 

Collins. 

6. MOTION: To repeal the requirement for certain procurements 

from firms in the small arms production industrial base. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 24–3. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson 

of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, 

Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and Collins. 

Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, and Graham. 

Not Voting: Senator Vitter. 

7. MOTION: To send 6,000 National Guard personnel to help secure the southern land border of the United States. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 15–13. 

In Favor: Senators Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, 

Vitter, and Collins. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson 

of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich, 

Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman. 

8. MOTION: To restore the previous policy regarding restrictions 

on use of Department of Defense Medical Facilities. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 15–12. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson 

of Florida, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, 

Begich, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman. 

Opposed: Senators Nelson of Nebraska, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and 

Vitter. 

Not Voting: Senator Collins. 

9. MOTION: To limit the transfer of detainees from United 

States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as modified. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 17–11. 

In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Udall 

of Colorado, Begich, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, 

Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, Vitter, and Collins. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
304 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, 

Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Burris, Bingaman, and Kaufman. 

10. MOTION: To repeal the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 16–12. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson 

of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, 

Hagan, Begich, Burris, Bingaman, Kaufman, and Collins. 

Opposed: Senators Webb, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 

Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, and Vitter. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011. 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
305 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 SR201.007
306 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 SR201.008
307 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 SR201.009
308 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 SR201.010
309 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 SR201.011
310 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 SR201.012
311 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 SR201.013
312 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 386 SR201.014
313 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 SR201.015
314 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 SR201.016
315 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 SR201.017
316 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 SR201.018
317 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 SR201.019
318 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 SR201.020
319 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 SR201.021
320 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 SR201.022
321 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 SR201.023
322 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 SR201.024
323 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 SR201.025
324 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 SR201.026
325 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 SR201.027
326 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 SR201.028
327 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 SR201.029
328 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 SR201.030
329 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 403 SR201.031
330 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 SR201.032
331 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 SR201.033
332 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 SR201.034
333 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 SR201.035
334 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 SR201.036
335 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 SR201.037
336 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 SR201.038
337 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 SR201.039
338 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 SR201.040
339 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 SR201.041
340 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 SR201.042
341 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 SR201.043
342 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 SR201.044
(343) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. MCCAIN 

McCain Deployment of National Guard to the Southern Border of the United States Amendment 

I am pleased that the committee approved my bipartisan amendment directing the immediate deployment of 6,000 National Guard 

personnel to our southwest border. As violence continues to escalate along the U.S.-Mexican border, it is imperative we utilize the 

significant capabilities of the National Guard to provide robust support to civilian authorities and law enforcement agencies. 

Families living in Arizona and other border states should not suffer from the daily threats caused by illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and human smuggling. It is the Federal government’s obligation to protect all Americans by securing the borders, and deploying 6,000 National Guard is a critical step in achieving that 

end. 

McCain on Abortion Amendment 

I am deeply concerned that the committee adopted an amendment that reverses the ban on using military medical treatment facilities to perform abortions, except when the life of the mother is 

in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, thus, allowing elective abortions to be performed in Department of Defense 

facilities. As someone who believes deeply in the sanctity of human 

life, I am opposed in principle to using Americans’ tax dollars to 

destroy innocent life, as this provision inevitably would. 

McCain on the Iraqi Security Forces Fund 

It was unfortunate and misguided that the committee voted, consistent with the Chairman’s Mark and despite my amendment to 

the contrary, to cut $1 billion from the President’s $2 billion request for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. 

This cut was totally arbitrary. It reflects the mistaken assumption that Iraq is not doing enough to provide for its own defenses, 

and that the United States should do even less than the President 

and his military commanders say we must do to ensure that Iraq’s 

forces can assume full control for their security as our troops redeploy out of Iraq. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs, and our commanders on the ground in Iraq all support the President’s request for $2 billion for the Iraq Security 

Forces. They have testified in support of this request to our committee. The committee’s decision to slash the President’s request in 

half was not only capricious; it was reckless and dangerous. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
344 

At tremendous cost and sacrifice, our troops have helped Iraqis 

reclaim their country, but Iraq is still a nation at war, fighting determined enemies, and our continued investment in the Iraqi Security Forces remains vital to the country’s success. It is even more 

vital as our troops withdraw from Iraq and as the Iraqi forces lead 

the fight on their own. Indeed, the success of the Iraqi Security 

Forces is what is allowing us to leave Iraq with victory. Why would 

we do anything to jeopardize the gains we have made at this delicate time of transition in Iraq? 

The cut to the Iraq Security Forces Fund is especially egregious when we consider that there is $2.8 billion of earmarks in this bill. 

The committee cut $1 billion from a program that is vital to our 

success in Iraq, which the President has requested, in order to fund 

billions of dollars in earmarks that the President has not requested 

and the military says it does not need. This is totally irresponsible. I proposed an amendment that would have cut $1 billion of additional funding from the Chairman’s Mark that was neither requested by the President nor listed in the military’s unfunded requirements list, directing these savings to fully fund the President’s request of $2 billion for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. I regret that my amendment did not pass, and I believe that is a sad 

statement about the priorities of a majority on this committee. 

McCain on Transparency and Earmarks 

I am deeply disappointed that the committee adopted about $2.8 

billion in earmarks that were added mostly without debate or discussion by the committee. 

I continue to have concerns with the degree of transparency and 

openness by which the committee includes such earmarks and 

unrequested funding additions to the bill. This is a matter of longstanding interest to me. The emphasis on accountability and on reducing the number and dollars involved in earmarks—and the deep 

frustration and anger the public is now voicing about the manner 

in which their elected representatives earmark funding for special 

projects—makes it essential that we spend taxpayers’ money wisely 

and responsibly. 

In approving this funding, the committee voted to authorize billions of dollars in spending while rejecting the recommendations of 

the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the 

Service Chiefs. I am not saying that member-requested additions 

are bad, all the time. Or that Congress should surrender its constitutional power to make funding decisions to the Executive 

Branch and simply be a rubber stamp. Many of the program funding additions may be worthwhile in terms of military capabilities 

and value to the taxpayer. But how we would know that? We have 

not discussed these program additions or developed a public record 

sufficient to support that sort of decision. The American people expect us to exercise our independent judgment as to what funding 

choices are in the nation’s best interest. How can we claim that we 

have done that in the case of $2.8 billion in earmarks? What basis 

can Members say they applied to judge the relative worth of these 

unrequested additions? Without debate, discussion, and a transparent public record, we are simply unable to exercise due diligence 

necessary to make that judgment. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
345 

I appreciate the committee’s decision this year to adopt my recommended change to internal committee procedures to allow Members and their staff access to the transparency tables required by 

Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate prior to consideration of the Chairman’s mark by each subcommittee. This is a good 

step in the right direction to ensure each Member of each subcommittee has an opportunity to at least review the changes to the 

budget in the Chairman’s mark that were included specifically at 

the request of a Member of Congress. 

Nevertheless, I will continue to ask the Chairman for a more deliberate mark up procedure that would require each subcommittee 

and the full committee to establish a formal record of review and 

vote for each case in which we adopt a staff recommendation or a 

Member request that is a departure or change from the President’s 

Budget request. I understand that the Chairman has the prerogative to develop and propose a series of decisions contained in a proposed Bill as the departure point for further discussion. But the 

Chairman should also establish a process that allows for the greatest extent of transparency and collaboration as befits the magnitude of the decisions. There must be a comprehensive understanding by all Members why the Chairman’s mark substitutes the 

judgment of staff and Member interests for certain programs over 

the requests for funding that have been validated and supported by 

the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs, the Service Secretaries, and the Service Chiefs. 

There is no doubt that the Constitution gives this Congress and 

this Committee enormous power. The National Defense Authorization Act is the largest single source of discretionary spending and 

policy making in the Federal Government. But only we can ensure 

that we exercise that power with the level of responsibility and due 

diligence that is commensurate with the importance of the national 

security mission we are entrusted with. This committee has a deserved reputation for operating in a bipartisan and collaborative 

manner among Members and staff, an absolute imperative to make 

the best decisions for the benefit of the Armed Forces and our national security. We should also make every effort to facilitate this 

cooperation with processes and procedures that enhance the transparency and accountability of our decisions. 

JOHN MCCAIN. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(346) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN CHAMBLISS 

Chambliss Navy Tactical Aircraft Procurement 

The Navy’s proposed FY11 budget requests approximately $1.8 

billion for the procurement of 22 F/A–18E/F Super Hornet strike 

fighters and approximately $1.0 billion for the procurement of 12 

EA–18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. The Senate Armed 

Services Committee (SASC) fully funded this request and added an 

additional 6 F–18E/Fs that were neither requested by DoD nor on 

the Navy/Marine Corps Unfunded Priorities List. 

On May 14th, the Pentagon announced that it had agreed in 

principle to enter into a multi-year contract to purchase up to 124 

F/A–18s. The additional F–18s are intended to fill the Navy ‘‘strike 

fighter gap’’ and also serve as a hedge against further delays to the 

F–35. In the FY10 NDAA, Congress conditionally authorized a 

multi-year contract for F–18s and the Department’s recent actions 

were in response to that conditional authority. 

In comparison to SASC and DoD/Navy action with respect to F– 

18 purchases, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Norton 

Schwartz said recently that the Air Force (which also has a fighter 

gap) would not be procuring any more non-5th Generation fighters 

since it would not make sense to fly those planes for the next 25 

years when you could invest in 5th Generation fighters instead. 

Without questioning the value and performance of the F–18 as 

a 4th generation fighter aircraft, I find the disparity between the 

approach DoD and SASC has taken to fighter modernization for 

the Navy and the Air Force alarming. Last year DoD and SASC 

pledged full faith and commitment to the F–35 as the future of tactical aviation for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. This commitment led DoD to strongly oppose purchasing additional F–22s, 

which is the only proven 5th Generation fighter aircraft in the 

world. 

Now, with the F–35 experiencing an IOC slip of up to three 

years, DoD and SASC are advocating additional F–18 purchases to 

hedge against this slip. Given that the F–18 has little value in a 

non-permissive threat environment (which the U.S. is likely to encounter anywhere except Iraq and Afghanistan), this multi-billion 

dollar investment in F–18s seems to be a questionable use of taxpayer dollars. 

While the Air Force is having to accept risk in their tactical aviation fleet and air dominance mission, the Navy is investing close 

to $10B in aircraft that are unsuitable to meeting the long term 

threats our nation will likely face and doing so at the expense of 

the F–35 which only last year DoD showcased as the future of tactical aviation for the nation. 

I find this confluence of events alarming and will continue to 

press DoD and this Committee to take a long term view toward 

tactical aviation modernization in a way that best addresses curVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
347 

rent and future threats, accepts risk only where appropriate, and 

uses scarce taxpayer dollars in the most responsible way. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(348) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN THUNE 

I appreciate the committee’s authorization of funding for research and development of the Next Generation Bomber in FY11, 

as well as the committee adopting an amendment I offered with 

Senator Joseph Lieberman during the mark-up to require a report 

on U.S. efforts to counter threats posed by anti-access and area-denial capabilities of various nations. These additional views provide 

further context to these and other items. 

Next Generation Bomber 

During an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 14, 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 

‘‘[t]he idea of a next-generation bomber, as far as I’m concerned, is 

a very open question, and the recommendation will come out of the 

Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review.’’ 

Now that these reviews have been concluded, the need, the requirement, and the technology for a follow-on bomber have become clear. 

The committee has authorized $198 million in funding for the 

Next Generation Bomber program in FY11. This funding represents a decision to move forward with the development of a next 

generation bomber, as reflected in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review Report (2010 QDR). While the 2010 QDR directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to expand future long-range strike capabilities and invest $1.7 billion over the FY2012–17 defense program, it also states that the Secretary of Defense has ordered a follow-on study to determine what will best support U.S. power projection operations over the next two to three decades. 

I believe the issue of future long-range strike capabilities has 

been studied closely numerous times over the past several years, 

and it is well past the time to move forward with developing a new 

bomber. A good example of how often and how closely the issue of 

future long-range strike capabilities has been studied is a Congressional Budget Office study from 2006 that stated with regard to 

long-range strike that ‘‘Numerous studies of which capabilities 

might be desired and several plans for potential long-range systems 

had been proposed, but none had resulted in decisions on a way to 

move forward.’’ (Congressional Budget Office Study, Alternatives 

for Long-Range Ground-Attack Systems, March 2006, page ix.) If 

the issue of future long-range strike capabilities and plans was already the topic of numerous studies four years ago, it begs the 

question of the need for additional studies today. I am heartened, 

however, by testimony from Defense Secretary Robert Gates before 

the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2, 2010, that 

‘‘the [long-range strike] studies up to now have been whether, and 

now the study is what.’’ 

I am also pleased to see from the prepared statement of General 

Kevin P. Chilton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, subVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Jun 08, 2010 Jkt 056612 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR201.XXX SR201

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
349 

mitted before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing held 

on March 24, 2010, that Strategic Command is ‘‘working with the 

Air Force to identify requirements for the next manned, nuclearcapable, long-range strike platform[.]’’ I fully support these efforts. 

Air-Sea Battle Concept 

Related to the issue of developing long-range strike capabilities 

is the effort by the Air Force and the Navy, as directed by the 2010 

QDR, to develop an ‘‘air-sea battle concept’’ that would deal with 

the rising challenge of nations developing sophisticated anti-access 

and area-denial capabilities that could limit U.S. freedom of action 

in strategically vital regions of the world. As Secretary Gates wrote 

in the January/February 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs, in an article entitled ‘‘A Balanced Strategy; Reprogramming the Pentagon 

for a New Age,’’ 

‘‘[i]n the case of China, Beijing’s investments in 

cyberwarfare, antisatellite warfare, antiaircraft and antiship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could 

threaten the United States primary means to project its 

power and help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea 

assets, and the networks that support them. This will put 

a premium on the United States ability to strike from over 

the horizon and employ missile defenses and will require 

shifts from short-range to longer-range systems, such as 

the next generation bomber.’’ 

I strongly support the effort to develop an air-sea battle concept, 

and to that end, the committee adopted an amendment similar to 

a provision included in the House version of the FY11 Defense Authorization bill requiring the Defense Department to provide a report on U.S. efforts to defend against threats posed by the anti-access and area-denial capabilities of certain nation-states. The report should also include a discussion of current and future U.S. 

long range strike capabilities in the context of countering anti-access and area-denial strategies. I look forward to working with all 

concerned on the development of the next generation bomber as 

well as the development of the air-sea battle concept. 

Abortion Amendment 

As someone who believes strongly in the sanctity of human life, 

I am deeply concerned that the Committee adopted an amendment 

that would repeal the prohibition on performing abortions in DOD 

medical facilities. 

JOHN THUNE. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(350) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. MCCAIN, INHOFE, SESSIONS, CHAMBLISS, GRAHAM, THUNE, WICKER, LEMIEUX, 

BROWN, BURR, AND VITTER 

McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, Vitter Repeal of Don’t Ask 

Don’t Tell Amendment 

We deeply regret that the committee chose to adopt the ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell’’ amendment. The inclusion of this amendment in 

the bill rejects the expressed recommendations of the Service 

Chiefs not to act until the results of an ongoing, comprehensive review into the implications of such a change are known. The decision breaks faith with a promise to all military personnel and their 

families that their views would be heard before Congress acts to repeal current law. The committee’s action has sent a message to 

military leaders, and the men and women they lead, that their 

opinions and concerns about the effects on readiness, discipline, 

unit cohesion, morale, recruiting, retention, and respect for the 

Armed Forces of allowing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered 

individuals to serve openly in the Armed Services are unimportant. 

The four Service Chiefs, the uniformed leaders responsible—and 

accountable—for the readiness, discipline, and morale of their 

forces, had this to say about the course of action chosen by the 

Committee: 

‘‘I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the 

review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward,’’ 

General George W. Casey, Jr., U.S. Army, Chief of Staff, U.S. 

Army. 

‘‘My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless 

of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of 

the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading 

Sailors to question whether their input matters,’’ Admiral G. 

Roughead, USN, Chief of Naval Operations. 

‘‘I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must make logical 

and pragmatic decisions about the long-term policies of our Armed 

Forces—which so effectively defend this great nation,’’ General 

James T. Conway, USMC, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. 

‘‘I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those 

currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the DA/DT law. Such action allows me to provide the 

best military advice to the President, and sends an important signal to our Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To 

do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect 

an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
351 

and understood,’’ General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, Chief of 

Staff, U.S. Air Force. 

We urge our colleagues in the Senate to reject the approach 

taken by the committee, strike this provision from the bill, and direct the Department of Defense to adhere to its original plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Department’s military 

and civilian leaders. 

JOHN MCCAIN. JAMES M. INHOFE. JEFF SESSIONS. SAXBY CHAMBLISS. LINDSEY GRAHAM. JOHN THUNE. ROGER F. WICKER. GEORGE S. LEMIEUX. SCOTT P. BROWN. RICHARD BURR. DAVID VITTER. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING