```

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

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

                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 80
 
                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1253]

                                   on

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

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     

                                     

                 June 22, 2011.--Ordered to be printed
                                     

                                     

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

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

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

                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 80

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1253]

                                   on

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

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     

                                     

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

  

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                     (112th Congress, 1st Session)

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

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

                   Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director

               David M. Morriss, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

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

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

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

                                _______
                                

                 June 22, 2011.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1253]

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

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

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

Committee overview

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

Scoring of budgetary effects (sec. 4)

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

Explanation of funding summary

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

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

           Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations

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

Title I: PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army......................................       7,061,381        -451,100       6,610,281
Missile Procurement, Army.......................................       1,478,718        -164,500       1,314,218
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.........................       1,933,512         304,300       2,237,812
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................       1,992,625               0       1,992,625
Other Procurement, Army.........................................       9,682,592        -420,600       9,261,992
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund...................         220,634        -220,634               0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy......................................      18,587,033        -495,000      18,092,033
Weapons Procurement, Navy.......................................       3,408,478        -205,000       3,203,478
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps..................         719,952                         719,952
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy.................................      14,928,921               0      14,928,921
Other Procurement, Navy.........................................       6,285,451         -12,000       6,273,451
Procurement, Marine Corps.......................................       1,391,602           1,000       1,392,602
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................      14,082,527        -180,049      13,902,478
Missile Procurement, Air Force..................................       6,074,017         -40,000       6,034,017
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................         539,065               0         539,065
Other Procurement, Air Force....................................      17,602,036               0      17,602,036
Procurement, Defense-Wide.......................................       5,365,248         -31,600       5,333,648
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................         100,000               0         100,000
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT...........................................     111,453,792      -1,915,183     109,538,609
 
Title II: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION
RDT&E, Army.....................................................       9,683,980        -316,805       9,367,175
RDT&E, Navy.....................................................      17,956,431         -44,900      17,911,531
RDT&E, Air Force................................................      27,737,701        -229,213      27,508,488
RDT&E, Defense-Wide.............................................      19,755,678         125,100      19,880,778
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense..........................         191,292               0         191,292
Subtotal, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION..............      75,325,082        -465,818      74,859,264
 
Title III: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army.................................      34,735,216        -469,100      34,266,116
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve.........................       3,109,176                       3,109,176
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard..................       7,041,432         -20,000       7,021,432
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.................................      39,364,688        -298,300      39,066,388
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps.........................       5,960,437         -28,800       5,931,637
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve.........................       1,323,134                       1,323,134
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................         271,443                         271,443
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................      36,195,133        -636,900      35,558,233
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................       3,274,359                       3,274,359
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard...................       6,136,280                       6,136,280
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide.........................      30,940,409      -1,029,480      29,910,929
US Court Of Appeals For The Armed Forces........................          13,861                          13,861
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid..................         107,662                         107,662
CooperativeThreat Reduction.....................................         508,219                         508,219
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund..........................         305,501                         305,501
Environmental Restoration, Army.................................         346,031               0         346,031
Environmental Restoration, Navy.................................         308,668               0         308,668
Environmental Restoration, Air Force............................         525,453               0         525,453
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide.........................          10,716               0          10,716
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites..........         276,495               0         276,495
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund...................           5,000               0           5,000
Deferred Expenses for Foreign Operations........................               0         406,605         406,605
Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................     170,759,313      -2,075,975     168,683,338
 
Title IV: MILITARY PERSONNEL....................................     142,828,848        -380,600     142,448,248
 
Title XIV: OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Working Capital Fund, Army......................................         101,194          -6,700          94,494
Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................          65,372          -6,300          59,072
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide..............................          31,614               0          31,614
Working Capital Fund, DECA......................................       1,376,830               0       1,376,830
National Defense Sealift Fund...................................       1,126,384               0       1,126,384
Defense Health Program..........................................      32,198,770               0      32,198,770
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense................       1,554,422               0       1,554,422
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense............       1,156,282         -39,000       1,117,282
Office of the Inspector General.................................         289,519          43,400         332,919
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................      37,900,387          -8,600      37,891,787
 
Subtotal, Division A, Base Budget...............................     538,267,422      -4,846,176     533,421,246
 
    Division A: Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Budget (Title XV)
 
Title XV--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
 
PROCUREMENT, OCO
Aircraft Procurement, Army......................................         423,400         -53,000         370,400
Missile Procurement, Army.......................................         126,556                         126,556
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.........................          37,117                          37,117
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................         208,381                         208,381
Other Procurement, Army.........................................       1,398,195                       1,398,195
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund...................       2,577,500         -44,366       2,533,134
Aircraft Procurement, Navy......................................         730,960                         730,960
Weapons Procurement, Navy.......................................          41,070                          41,070
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps..................         317,100                         317,100
Other Procurement, Navy.........................................         281,975                         281,975
Procurement, Marine Corps.......................................       1,260,996        -175,000       1,085,996
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................         527,865         -70,000         457,865
Missile Procurement, Air Force..................................          28,420                          28,420
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................          92,510                          92,510
Other Procurement, Air Force....................................       3,204,641                       3,204,641
Procurement, Defense-Wide.......................................         469,968         -71,800         398,168
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................         100,000                         100,000
Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Veh Fund.......................       3,195,170                       3,195,170
Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO......................................      15,021,824        -414,166      14,607,658
 
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION, OCO
RDT&E, Army.....................................................           8,513                           8,513
RDT&E, Navy.....................................................          53,884                          53,884
RDT&E, Air Force................................................         142,000                         142,000
RDT&E, Defense-Wide.............................................         192,361                         192,361
Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO............................................         396,758                         396,758
 
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO
Operation and Maintenance, Army.................................      44,302,280         -25,000      44,277,280
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve.........................         217,500                         217,500
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard..................         387,544                         387,544
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund................................      12,800,000                      12,800,000
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.................................         475,000         -75,000         400,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.................................       7,006,567                       7,006,567
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps.........................       3,571,210          27,000       3,598,210
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve.........................          74,148                          74,148
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................          36,084                          36,084
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force............................      10,719,187                      10,719,187
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................         142,050                         142,050
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard...................          34,050                          34,050
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide.........................       9,269,411         -11,300       9,258,111
Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO........................      89,035,031         -84,300      88,950,731
 
MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO.........................................      11,228,566                      11,228,566
 
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO
Working Capital Fund, Army......................................          54,000                          54,000
Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................          12,000                          12,000
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide..............................         369,013         -38,500         330,513
Defense Health Program..........................................       1,228,288                       1,228,288
Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense............         486,458                         486,458
Office of the Inspector General.................................          11,055                          11,055
Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO.............................       2,160,814         -38,500       2,122,314
 
Subtotal, Division A, OCO Budget................................     117,842,993        -536,966     117,306,027
 
Total, Division A...............................................     656,110,415      -5,383,142     650,727,273
 
                           Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
 
Division B: Base Budget (Titles XXI--XXVI)
 
Titles XXI--XXVI: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction, Army.....................................       3,235,991        -169,100       3,066,891
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps....................       2,461,547        -273,925       2,187,622
Military Construction, Air Force................................       1,364,858        -137,800       1,227,058
Military Construction, Defense-Wide.............................       3,848,757        -467,840       3,380,917
Chemical Demilitarization Construction..........................          75,312                          75,312
NATO Security Investment Program................................         272,611                         272,611
Military Construction, Army National Guard......................         773,592                         773,592
Military Construction, Army Reserve.............................         116,246                         116,246
Military Construction, Navy Reserve.............................         280,549                         280,549
Military Construction, Air National Guard.......................          26,299                          26,299
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve........................          33,620                          33,620
Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.................................      12,489,382      -1,048,665      11,440,717
 
Titles XXI--XXVI: FAMILY HOUSING
Family Housing Construction, Army...............................         186,897                         186,897
Family Housing O&M, Army........................................         494,858                         494,858
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps..............         100,972                         100,972
Family Housing O&M, Navy and Marine Corps.......................         367,863                         367,863
Family Housing Construction, Air Force..........................          84,804                          84,804
Family Housing O&M, Air Force...................................         404,761                         404,761
Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide................................          50,723                          50,723
Homeowners Assistance Fund......................................           2,184                           2,184
Family Housing Improvement Fund.................................           1,284                           1,284
Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING........................................       1,694,346                       1,694,346
 
Title XXXVII: BRAC
Defense Base Closure Account 1990...............................         323,543                         323,543
Defense Base Closure Account 2005...............................         258,776                         258,776
Subtotal, BRAC..................................................         582,319                         582,319
 
Total, Division B...............................................      14,766,047      -1,048,665      13,717,382
 
SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B..........................     553,033,469      -5,894,841     547,138,628
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B...........................     117,842,993        -536,966     117,306,027
 
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051)..............................     670,876,462      -6,431,807     664,444,655
 
   Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations
 
Division C (Titles XXXI and XXXII)
 
Department of Energy Authorization (Title XXXI)
 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.....................           6,187          -6,187
 
Title XXXI: NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities..............................................       7,629,716          -1,000       7,628,716
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................       2,549,492          -2,813       2,546,679
Naval Reactors..................................................       1,153,662                       1,153,662
Office of the Administrator.....................................         450,060                         450,060
Subtotal, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............      11,782,930          -3,813      11,779,117
 
Title XXXI: ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup...................................       5,406,781          10,000       5,416,781
Other Defense Activities........................................         859,952                         859,952
Subtotal, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............       6,266,733          10,000       6,276,733
 
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.....................................      18,055,850                      18,055,850
 
Title XXXII: DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.........................          29,130           4,187          33,317
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD..................          29,130           4,187          33,317
 
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).....................      18,084,980           4,187      18,089,167
 
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050).............................     688,961,442      -6,427,620     682,533,822
 
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)..........          67,700                          67,700
 
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
Title X--General Transfer Authority (non-add)...................     [5,000,000]                     [5,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority (non-add)..................     [4,000,000]                     [4,000,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                                            (In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2012                         Senate
                                                                      Request      Senate Change    Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee...................
SUBTOTAL, BASE BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B..........................     553,033,469      -5,894,841     547,138,628
SUBTOTAL, OCO BUDGET, DIVISIONS A & B...........................     117,842,993        -536,966     117,306,027
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051)..............................     670,876,462      -6,431,807     664,444,655
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).....................      18,084,980           4,187      18,089,167
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050).............................     688,961,442      -6,427,620     682,533,822
 
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or
 Do Not Require Additional Authorization........................................................................
Defense Production Act Purchases................................          19,964                          19,964
Indefinite Account: National Science Center, Army...............              25                              25
Indefinite Account: Overseas Military Facility Investment                  1,000                           1,000
 Recovery.......................................................
Indefinte Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property................           9,000                           9,000
Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property..................          22,000                          22,000
SCN--Reappropriation (unspecified transfers to SCN: in annual             20,000                          20,000
 DoD appropriations bill).......................................
SCN--Use of expired funds for reimbursements to the Claims and             8,000                           8,000
 Judgement Fund (in annual DoD appropriations bill).............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051...............................          79,989                          79,989
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.................         109,000                         109,000
Assumed Rescission (DOE Weapons Activities).....................         -40,000                         -40,000
Assumed Rescission (Nuclear Non-Proliferation)..................         -30,000                         -30,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053...............................          39,000                          39,000
Other Discretionary Programs....................................       6,960,000                       6,960,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054...............................       6,960,000                       6,960,000
Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050)...................       7,078,989                       7,078,989
 
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary....................................................
Department of Defense--Military (051)...........................     670,956,451      -6,431,807     664,524,644
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053)..........................      18,123,980           4,187      18,128,167
Defense-Related Activities (054)................................       6,960,000                       6,960,000
Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary............     696,040,431      -6,427,620     689,612,811
 
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates)................................................
Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement         5,408,000                       5,408,000
 Fund...........................................................
Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory........................       1,326,000                       1,326,000
Offsetting receipts.............................................      -1,801,000                      -1,801,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051...............................       4,933,000                       4,933,000
Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and        1,344,000                       1,344,000
 other..........................................................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053...............................       1,344,000                       1,344,000
Radiation exposure compensation trust fund......................          45,000                          45,000
Payment to CIA retirement fund and other........................         514,000                         514,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054...............................         559,000                         559,000
Total National Defense Mandatory (050)..........................       6,836,000                       6,836,000
 
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory......................................
Department of Defense--Military (051)...........................     675,889,451      -6,431,807     669,457,644
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053)..........................      19,467,980           4,187      19,472,167
Defense-Related Activities (054)................................       7,519,000                       7,519,000
Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and             702,876,431      -6,427,620     696,448,811
 Mandatory......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Explanation of tables

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)

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

                       Subtitle B--Navy Programs

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

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

                     Subtitle C--Air Force Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to enter a multiyear procurement 
contract in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United 
States Code, for up to 5 years for Army UH-60M/HH-60M airframes 
and, acting as executive agent for the Department of the Navy, 
for MH-60R/MH-60S airframes.
    The committee notes that this would be the eighth multiyear 
procurement contract over the long life of the H-60 helicopter 
program. The committee believes the program continues to meet 
the criteria for multiyear procurement. The committee is 
concerned, however, that the current multiyear contract, 
awarded in 2007, failed to achieve the savings projected at the 
time of approval of that contract. When the Department sought 
authorization for the 2007 multiyear contract, the Army 
estimated savings of 5.5 percent versus annual procurements. In 
retrospect, the Army now estimates that the contract only 
achieved savings of 4 percent. This is not encouraging.
    The committee expects that committing future Department 
leaders, Congress, and taxpayers to multiyear contracts is 
justified by the substantial savings that would not be achieved 
by annual contracts. The Army is projecting savings for this 
next multiyear contract, if authorized, to be 10 percent. This 
projection may be overly optimistic given the performance of 
the last multiyear contract. The committee recommends 
supporting the Department's request for multiyear contract 
authority, but directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the 
congressional defense committees with an annual briefing during 
the executionof this contract on progress achieved in meeting 
or exceeding the projected savings used to justify granting this 
authority. This briefing shall accompany the Army's annual budget 
request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items

                                  Army

Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System

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

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System

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

Stinger air defense missile system modifications

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

Abrams upgrade program

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

Integrated air burst weapons system family

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

M2 .50 caliber machine gun

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

Lightweight .50 caliber machine gun

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

Joint Tactical Radio System

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

Ground Soldier System

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

Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team

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

                 Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Fund

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

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

                                  Navy

F/A-18E/F

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

Mobile User Objective System

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

Consolidated afloat networks and enterprise services

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

Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force

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

                               Air Force

HH-60M

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

Light attack armed reconnaissance aircraft

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

F-16 modifications

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

Family of advanced beyond line of site terminals

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

GPS III Space Segment

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

                              Defense-wide

Defense Information Systems Agency satellite

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

High Speed Assault Craft

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

Non-Standard Aviation

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

Village Stability Operations and Afghan Local Police unfunded 
        requirements

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

                       Items of Special Interest

C-27J

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

Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station

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

Intercontinental ballistic missiles modifications

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

Joint Tactical Radio System

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

Light tactical vehicles

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

Multiyear procurement savings estimates

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

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

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

Failure of the requirements process

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

The relationship between the ACV and the MPC

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

Committee recommendations

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

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Matters

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

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

Ground-based Midcourse Defense program (sec. 232)

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

Missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 233)

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

                          Subtitle D--Reports

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

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

                              Budget Items

                                  Army

Medium Extended Air Defense System

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

Army test and evaluation

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

                                  Navy

Naval laser technology

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

Naval electromagnetic railgun

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

                               Air Force

Metals Affordability Initiative

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

Conventional weapons technology

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

Intercontinental ballistic missile demonstration and validation

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

Space situational awareness systems

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

Space-based Infrared System

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

Next generation aerial refueling aircraft

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

CSAR HH-60 recapitalization

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

Air Force test and evaluation

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

F-22A squadrons

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

                              Defense-wide

Data to decisions programmatic decrease

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

Department of Defense research & engineering cyber security activities

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

Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD) programmatic decrease

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

Industrial Base Innovation Fund

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

Hybrid air vehicle demonstration

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

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

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

Airborne Laser Test Bed

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

Defense technology transition and transfer programs

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

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

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

Ballistic missile defense targets

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

Standard Missile-3 Block IB

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

Sea-Based X-Band radar

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

U.S.-Israeli cooperative ballistic missile defense programs

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

Corrosion prevention and control shortfall

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

Standard Missile-3 Block IIA co-development

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

Defense Technical Information Center programmatic decrease

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

Development, test, and evaluation

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

Demonstrations and pilot projects on cybersecurity

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

File Sanitization Tool

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

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Advanced affordable turbine engine program

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

Air Force weather modernization plan

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

Army robotics

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

Army Rotorcraft science and technology

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

Assessment of recent impacts in rare earth metals markets

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

Assessment of the defense industrial base

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

Ballistic missile defense overview

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

Blue Devil Block 2

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

Defense microelectronics strategy

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

Department of Defense space science and technology strategy

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

Global Hawk communications system re-architecture

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

High Performance Computing Modernization Program

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

Joint Trauma Analysis and Prevention of Injury in Combat Program

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

Lease of Blue Devil Block 1 aircraft

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

Medical Countermeasures Initiative

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

Medium-range vertical lift unmanned aerial systems

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

Nanotechnology research

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

Navy manned reconnaissance

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

Navy open architecture

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

Paladin Integration Management

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

Surface ship torpedo defense

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

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Operation and Maintenance Funding (sec. 301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the 
levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act.

            Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions

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

                Subtitle C--Work Place and Depot Issues

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

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

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

                          Subtitle D--Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

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

Working-capital fund accounting (sec. 342)

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

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

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

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

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

Utility disruptions to military installations (sec. 345)

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

                              Budget Items

Army funding decrease for unjustified growth

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

Reduction in funding for contract services

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

Reduction in funding for Department of Defense business systems

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

Management efficiencies in the military intelligence program

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

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

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

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

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

Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances

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

Reduction in non-dual status technician limitation

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

                     [Change in millions of dollars]

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

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

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

Funding decrease for unexecuted museum

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

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

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

Defense-wide funding decrease for ahead of need request

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

Department of Defense Education Activity Operations and Maintenance 
        funding

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

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

Reimbursement for expenses deferred to fund foreign operations

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Army energy security implementation strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Defense efficiencies initiative and critical workforce 
        capabilities

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

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

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

Department of Defense Inspector General report on Qarmat Ali

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

Energy metering and other energy efficiency technologies

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

Military commuter centers

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

Net-Zero energy usage on military installations

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

Program management of weapon systems in the sustain- 
        ment phase

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

Protection of resources at Fort Huachuca, Arizona

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

Readiness support for Navy unfunded requirements

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

Required action relating to water contamination at Camp Lejeune

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

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

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

Security surveillance at forward operating bases

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

Updated requirement for ammunition plant and arsenal plans

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

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

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

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

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

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)

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

                              Budget Item

Military personnel funding changes

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

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]

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

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

             Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally

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

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   Subtitle D--Education and Training

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

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

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

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

Reserve component mental health student stipend (sec. 543)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Matters Generally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           Subtitle F--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness

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

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

                       Subtitle I--Other Matters

Cold War Service Medal (sec. 581)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

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

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

Department of the Air Force Total Force Initiative

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

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

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

Ensuring knowledge of the Uniformed Services Employment and 
        Reemployment Rights Act

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

Impact of operational tempo on special operations forces

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

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

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

Military Adaptive Sports Program

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

Preventing foreclosures of service members' mortgages

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

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

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

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

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

           Subtitle A--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay 
        authorities (sec. 611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the following bonuses and special 
pays related to the reserve forces: the Selected Reserve 
reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or 
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to 
certain high-priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus 
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment 
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the 
Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons 
with prior service, and income replacement for reserve 
component members experiencing extended and frequent 
mobilization for active duty service.
    The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 
pay the following bonus and special pays related to health care 
professionals: the nurse officer candidate accession bonus, 
education loan repayment for certain health professionals who 
serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 
for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, 
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for 
Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short 
wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental officers, 
the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the accession bonus 
for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, 
the accession bonus for dental specialist officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and bonus and incentive 
pay for officers in the health professions.
    The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 
pay the following bonus and special pays related to nuclear 
officers: special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending 
period of active service, the nuclear career accession bonus, 
the nuclear career annual incentive bonus, and special bonus 
and incentive pay for nuclear officers.
    The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 
pay the following consolidated special pays and bonuses: the 
general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus 
authority for officers, special aviation incentive pay and 
bonus for officers, hazardous duty pay, assignment or special 
duty pay, the skill incentive or proficiency bonus, and 
retention incentives for members qualified in critical military 
skills or assigned to high priority units.
    The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 
pay the following other bonuses and special pays: the aviation 
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the 
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, 
the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the 
incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational 
specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for 
transfer between armed forces, and the accession bonus for 
officer candidates.
    Finally, the provision would amend section 403 of title 37, 
United States Code, to reauthorize for a period of 1 year 
previously expired authority to pay additional basic allowance 
for housing in areas impacted by a major disaster or at 
installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel.
Modification of qualifying period for payment of hostile fire and 
        imminent danger special pay and hazardous duty special pay 
        (sec. 612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 310 and 351 of title 37, United States Code, to 
require that hostile fire and imminent danger pay be prorated 
according to the number of days spent in a qualifying area, 
rather than on a monthly basis regardless of the number of such 
days.

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

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

Transition provisions (sec. 622)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Item of Special Interest

Basic allowance for housing for areas with housing shortages

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

                      Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

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

                 Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 Subtitle C--Health Care Administration

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Colorectal cancer screening for Department of Defense beneficiaries

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

Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 
        Brain Injury

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

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

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

Research on musculoskeletal injuries

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

 Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

             Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prohibition on collection of political information (sec. 845)

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

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

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

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

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

         Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Wartime Contracting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Competition in contracts for services

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

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

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

Cost-consciousness in contingency contracting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedures for suspension and debarment

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

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

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

Prompt payment discounts and interest on late payments

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

Reliability and maintainability of weapon systems

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

Streamlining procedures for contract close-out

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

Test and evaluation of major defense acquisition programs

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

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

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

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

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

Defense laboratory matters (sec. 905)

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

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

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

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities

Commercial space launch cooperation (sec. 911)

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

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

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

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

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

                    Subtitle C--Intelligence Matters

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

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

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

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

Ozone Widget Framework (sec. 923)

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

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

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

                   Subtitle D--Cybersecurity Matters

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Determination of funding mechanisms for construction of test and 
        evaluation facilities

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

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

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

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

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

Navy test and evaluation

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

Rocket System Launch Program

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

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

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

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

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

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

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

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend, by 
5 years, the authority of the Department of Defense to provide 
additional support to counterdrug activities of other 
governmental agencies under section 1004 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510). The provision also would modify the authorized recipients 
of support under this authority to include tribal law 
enforcement entities, as defined by section 4 of the Indian 
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
450b).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

Management of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1041)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Subtitle F--Repeal & Modification of Reporting Requirements

                Part I--Repeal of Reporting Requirements

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

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

               Subtitle G--Other Study and Report Matters

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

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

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

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

        ``The Panel notes with extreme concern that our current 
        federal government structures--both executive and 
        legislative, and in particular those related to 
        security--were fashioned in the 1940s and, at best, 
        they work imperfectly today. The U.S. defense framework 
        adopted after World War II was structured to address 
        the Soviet Union in a bipolar world. The threats of 
        today are much different. A new approach is needed . . 
        . The Panel finds that the Executive branch lacks an 
        effective `whole of government' capacity that 
        integrates the planning and execution capabilities of 
        the many federal departments and agencies that have 
        national security responsibilities . . . Today civilian 
        departments and agencies lack the capacity to provide 
        the array of capabilities required for effective 
        support to the Department of Defense in stability and 
        reconstruction operations in unstable host nations. In 
        many cases, even pre-conflict and certainly post-
        conflict, our civilians will be deployed in situations 
        of ``security insecurity'' and thus will have to be 
        able to operate in an integrated way with security 
        forces [whether with indigenous forces (especially in a 
        pre-conflict, failing state case), with international 
        peacekeepers, or with U.S. forces (especially in post-
        conflict situations)].''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical amendment (sec. 1087)

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Audit readiness of Department of Defense financial statements

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

Combating Terrorism Center

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Defense support to counter threat finance operations

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

Estimating the cost of global defense posture

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

Export control reform

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

Global Combat Support System-Army

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

Intelligence and information support for counterinsurgency

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

Strategic airlift aircraft force structure

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

United States force posture in the Asia-Pacific region

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

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

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

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

Global Security Contingency Fund (sec. 1207)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Burden sharing within NATO

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

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

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

Report on Taiwan's Air Defense Force

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

Report on U.S.-India Security Cooperation

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

United States-Tunisia military-to-military cooperation

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

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

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs

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

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

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

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

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

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406)

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

                 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$50.1 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction 
fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense 
Stockpile for fiscal year 2012. This provision would also 
permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or 
emergency conditions 45 days after congressional notification.

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

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

                Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home

                Part I--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 1421)

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

           Part II--Armed Forces Retirement Home Authorities

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

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

Annual validation of multiyear accreditation (sec. 1423)

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators and ombudsmen of facilities (sec. 1426)

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

Inspection requirements (sec. 1427)

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

Repeal of obsolete provisions (sec. 1428)

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

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

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

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

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

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

                              Budget Items

Department of Defense Inspector General growth plan

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

Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities

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

                        Item of Special Interest

Beryllium stockpile evaluation

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

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
this title and make authorization of appropriations available 
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in 
additional to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to 
provide for additional costs due to overseas contingency 
operations.

Procurement (sec. 1502)

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

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

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

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1504)

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

Military personnel (sec. 1505)

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

Working capital funds (sec. 1506)

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

Defense Health Program (sec. 1507)

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

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

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

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)

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

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)

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

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)

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

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items

AH-64 Apache Longbow Block III

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

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

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

Marine Corps budget request realignments

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

Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement

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

Special operations forces aircraft procurement

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

Commanders' Emergency Response Program

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

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund

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

Trans Regional Web Initiative

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

                        Item of Special Interest

Improvised explosive device precursor chemicals originating in Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rescission of Army military construction funds (sec. 2112)

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

Tour normalization (sec. 2113)

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Storage of Army artifacts

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

                     Military realignments in Korea

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Comptroller General report on aircraft carrier homeporting on the East 
        Coast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Item of Special Interest

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

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

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

               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

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

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations

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

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

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

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

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)

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

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

                        Item of Special Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

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

                      Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

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

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

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

Data servers and centers (sec. 2832)

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Force Protection and Anti-Terrorism Standards

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

Defense facility condition index

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

Kansas City Information Technology Center

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

Life cycle cost management in military construction projects

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

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

          Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorization

                                Overview

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

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

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

Weapons activities

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

Directed stockpile work

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

Campaigns

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

Readiness in the technical base

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

Secure transportation asset

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

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response

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

Facilities and infrastructure

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

Site stewardship

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

Safeguards and security

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

National security applications

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

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

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

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

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

Nonproliferation and international security

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

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation

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

Fissile materials disposition

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

Unites States fissile materials disposition

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

Russian fissile materials disposition

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

Global threat reduction initiative

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

Naval reactors

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

Office of the Administrator

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

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

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

Savannah River Site

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

Waste Treatment Plant

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

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

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

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

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

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

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

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

Aircraft procurement (sec. 3113)

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

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

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

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

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

                          Subtitle C--Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FY 2012 Request                Senate Change               Senate Authorized
             Line                             Item               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Qty          Cost            Qty            Cost            Qty          Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
3                               AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)          18         539,574                      -451,100            18          88,474
                                   Program delay................                                                 [-451,100]
 
                                MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
9                               GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)......       2,784         314,167                      -150,000         2,784         164,167
                                   Program reduction............                                                 [-150,000]
13                              STINGER MODS....................           0          14,495                       -14,500             0              -5
                                   Transfer at Army request to                                                    [-14,500]
                                   RDTE Army PE 23801A.
 
                                PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
14                              ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM..........          21         181,329          49           322,000            70         503,329
                                   Program increase.............                                     [49]         [322,000]
17                              INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON                5          16,046                       -16,000             5              46
                                 SYSTEM FAMILY.
                                   Transfer at Army's request to                                                  [-16,000]
                                   RDTE, Army PE 64601A.
19                              MACHINE GUN, CAL .50 M2 ROLL....       4,700          65,102                       -34,000         4,700          31,102
                                   Transfer at Army request to                                                    [-34,000]
                                   WTCV line 34.
20                              LIGHTWEIGHT .50 CALIBER MACHINE          700          28,796                        -1,700           700          27,096
                                 GUN.
 
                                   Transfer at Army request to                                                     [-1,700]
                                   RDTE Army PE 64601A   .
34                              M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS......           0          14,856                        34,000             0          48,856
                                   Transfer at Army request from                                                   [34,000]
                                   WTCV line 19.
 
                                OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
39                              JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM.....      17,120         775,832                      -200,000        17,120         575,832
                                   Program delay in GMR and                                                      [-200,000]
                                   Maritime/Fixed radios.
147                             GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM...........           0         184,072                       -28,300             0         155,772
                                   Program delay and transfer to                                                  [-28,300]
                                   PE 64827A.
198                             BCT TRAINING/LOGISTICS/                    0         149,308                      -123,300             0          26,008
                                 MANAGEMENT.
                                   Program cancelation..........                                                 [-123,300]
199                             BCT TRAINING/LOGISTICS/                    0          57,103                       -57,100             0               3
                                 MANAGEMENT INC 2.
                                   Program cancelation..........                                                  [-57,100]
200                             BCT UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE INC            0          11,924                       -11,900             0              24
                                 2.
                                   Program cancelation..........                                                  [-11,900]
 
                                JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
                                 FUND
4                               OPERATIONS......................           0         220,634                      -220,634             0               0
                                   Transfer to Title XV JIEDDO                                                   [-220,634]
                                   Operations.
 
                                AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
3                               F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET......          28       2,369,047          -9          -495,000            19       1,874,047
                                   Funded in H. R. 1473.........                                     [-9]        [-495,000]
 
                                WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
17                              FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON..           0         238,215          -1          -205,000            -1          33,215
                                   Booster for SV4 early to need                                     [-1]        [-205,000]
 
                                OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
68                              CANES...........................           0         195,141                       -89,600             0         105,541
                                   Transfer to Ship                                                               [-77,600]
                                   Communications Automation
                                   (OPN 76) per USN request.
                                   Transfer to PE 33138N (RDN                                                     [-12,000]
                                   201) per USN request.
76                              SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION..           0         177,510                        77,600             0         255,110
                                   Transfer from CANES (OPN 68)                                                    [77,600]
                                   pe USN request.
 
                                PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
31                              RADIO SYSTEMS...................           0          89,479                         1,000             0          90,479
                                   Equipment upgrade for CBNIRF                                                     [1,000]
                                   (UFR).
 
                                AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
24                              HH-60M..........................           3         104,711          -2           -69,900             1          34,811
                                   Combat losses funded in FY11.                                     [-2]         [-69,900]
25                              LIGHT ATTACK ARMED RECON ACFT...           9         158,549          -9          -158,549             0               0
                                   Defer production pending R&D                                      [-9]        [-158,549]
                                   completion.
40                              F-16............................           0          73,346                       -16,600             0          56,746
                                   Mode 5 procurement ahead of                                                    [-16,600]
                                   need.
73                              H-60............................           0          34,371                        54,600             0          88,971
                                   Transfer from PE 65299F (RDAF                                                   [54,600]
                                   81) per USAF request.
75                              HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS.........           0             431                        10,400             0          10,831
                                   Transfer from PE 65299F (RDAF                                                   [10,400]
                                   81) per USAF request.
76                              OTHER AIRCRAFT..................           0         115,338                             0             0         115,338
                                   EHF SATCOM, FAB-T advance                                                       [47,100]
                                   procurement-AF program change
                                   (non-add).
 
                                MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
19                              GPS III SPACE SEGMENT...........           0          81,811                       -40,000             0          41,811
                                   Excess advance procurement--                                                   [-40,000]
                                   AF program change.
                                OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
46                              MILSATCOM SPACE.................           0         104,720                             0             0         104,720
                                   EHF SATCOM, FAB-T advance                                                       [63,800]
                                   procurement-AF program change
                                   (non-add).
 
                                PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
52                              NON-STANDARD AVIATION...........          15         272,623          -6           -96,600             9         176,023
                                   NSAV-M Unjustified                                                [-2]         [-50,100]
                                   Requirement.
                                   AvFID Funding ahead of need..                                     [-4]         [-55,000]
                                   NSAV-L Transfer from OCO.....                                                    [8,500]
70                              INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS............           0          74,702                        15,600             0          90,302
                                   VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement.                                                   [15,600]
71                              SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS..........           0           9,196                         4,000             0          13,196
                                   VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement.                                                    [4,000]
76                              COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS.........           0           6,899                        15,000             0          21,899
                                   HSAC Unfunded Requirement....                                                   [15,000]
78                              TACTICAL VEHICLES...............           0          33,915                        27,800             0          61,715
                                   VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement.                                                   [27,800]
88                              SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL            0             362                         2,600             0           2,962
                                 SYSTEMS.
                                   VSO/ALP Unfunded Requirement.                                                    [2,600]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           FY 2012 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
              Line                              Item                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
8                                AH-64 BLOCK II/WRA................           1          35,500                     -35,500            1               0
                                    Program reduction..............                                                [-35,500]
12                               UH-60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP).....           4          72,000          -1         -17,500            3          54,500
                                    Combat Loss funded in FY11.....                                    [-1]        [-17,500]
 
                                 JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
                                  FUND
1                                ATTACK THE NETWORK................           0       1,368,800                     -90,000            0       1,278,800
                                    Undistributed efficiencies                                                     [-90,000]
                                    reduction.
2                                DEFEAT THE DEVICE.................           0         961,200                    -150,000            0         811,200
                                    Undistributed efficiencies                                                    [-150,000]
                                    reduction.
3                                TRAIN THE FORCE...................           0         247,500                      -5,000            0         242,500
                                    Undistributed efficiencies                                                      [-5,000]
                                    reduction.
4                                OPERATIONS........................           0                                     200,634            0         200,634
                                    Transfer from Title I                                                          [220,634]
                                    Operations.
                                    Undistributed efficiencies                                                     [-20,000]
                                    reduction.
 
                                 PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
32                               COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS..           0          54,177                      70,000            0         124,177
                                    Digital technical control                                                       [20,000]
                                    shelters.
                                    Data distribution system                                                        [50,000]
                                    modules.
38                               MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE                    783         392,391                    -300,000          783          92,391
                                  REPLACEMENT.
                                    MTVR Reduction.................                                               [-300,000]
46                               POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED..........           0          51,895                      55,000            0         106,895
                                    Advanced power sources.........                                                 [20,000]
                                    Mobile power equipment.........                                                 [35,000]
 
                                 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
19                               V22 OSPREY........................           2          70,000          -1         -70,000            1               0
                                    Combat Loss funded in FY11.....                                    [-1]        [-70,000]
 
                                 PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
50                               MH-47 SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION                 2          40,500          -1         -40,500            1               0
                                  PROGRAM.
                                    Combat Loss funded in FY11.....                                    [-1]        [-40,500]
51                               MH-60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.......           1           7,800          -1          -7,800            0               0
                                    Combat Loss funded in FY11.....                                    [-1]         [-7,800]
52                               NON-STANDARD AVIATION.............           9           8,500                      -8,500            9               0
                                    NSAV-L Transfer to Base........                                                 [-8,500]
57                               CV-22 MODIFICATION................           1          15,000          -1         -15,000            0               0
                                    Combat Loss funded in FY11.....                                    [-1]        [-15,000]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION
 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION Committee Recommended Adjustments  (In Thousands of
                                                    Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
  Line      Program Element                Item            FY 2012  Request    Senate  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION, ARMY
    84   0604601A               INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS.            73,728            17,700             91,428
         .....................     Transfer at Army                                  [16,000]
                                   request from WTCV line
                                   17.
         .....................     Transfer at Army                                   [1,700]
                                   request from WTCV line
                                   20.
   119   0604827A               SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR             48,309             7,600             55,909
                                 DEM/VAL.
         .....................     Transfer at Army                                   [7,600]
                                   request from OPA line
                                   147.
   121   0604869A               PATRIOT/MEADS COMBINED              406,605          -406,605                  0
                                 AGGREGATE PROGRAM (CAP).
         .....................     Program Decrease......                          [-406,605]
         .....................
         .....................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT,
                                 ARMY
   140   0605601A               ARMY TEST RANGES AND                262,456            50,000            312,456
                                 FACILITIES.
         .....................     Program Increase......                            [50,000]
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT, ARMY
   169   0203801A               MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE                  44,560            14,500             59,060
                                 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
                                 PROGRAM.
         .....................     Transfer at Army                                  [14,500]
                                   Request from MPA line
                                   13.
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH, NAVY
     4   0602114N               POWER PROJECTION APPLIED            104,804           -40,000             64,804
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................     Program Decrease- Free                           [-30,000]
                                   Electron Laser.
         .....................     Program Decrease-                                [-10,000]
                                   Electromagnetic
                                   railgun.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
    15   0603114N               POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED           114,270           -16,900             97,370
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................     Program Decrease-                                [-16,900]
                                   Electromagnetic
                                   railgun.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT, NAVY
   190   0206623M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                 209,396                 0            209,396
                                 COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
                                 SYSTEMS.
         .....................     Amphibious Combat                                 [18,000]
                                   Vehicle (non-add).
   201   0303138N               CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT                  12,906            12,000             24,906
                                 NETWORK ENTERPRISE
                                 SERVICES (CANES).
         .....................     Transfer from CANES                               [12,000]
                                   (OPN 68) per USN
                                   request.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT, AIR FORCE
    14   0603112F               ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR               39,738            10,000             49,738
                                 WEAPON SYSTEMS.
         .....................     Program Increase-                                 [10,000]
                                   Metals Affordability
                                   Initiative.
    23   0603601F               CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS                 54,042           -20,000             34,042
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................     Program Decrease-                                [-20,000]
                                   Unjustified growth.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES, AIR FORCE
    39   0603851F               INTERCONTINENTAL                     67,202            20,000             87,202
                                 BALLISTIC MISSILE.
         .....................     Program Increase......                            [20,000]
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION, AIR FORCE
    65   0604425F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS           273,689             6,000            279,689
                                 SYSTEMS.
         .....................     Space Surveillance                                 [6,000]
                                   Telescope military
                                   utility assessment.
    67   0604441F               SPACE BASED INFRARED                621,629            35,000            656,629
                                 SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
         .....................     Data explotation......                            [15,000]
         .....................     SABRS integration on                              [20,000]
                                   SV 5 and 6.
    80   0605221F               NEXT GENERATION AERIAL              877,084          -127,100            749,984
                                 REFUELING AIRCRAFT.
         .....................     Align funding to                                [-127,100]
                                   signed KC-46A contract.
    81   0605229F               CSAR HH-60                           94,113           -83,113             11,000
                                 RECAPITALIZATION.
         .....................     Transfer to HC-130                               [-10,400]
                                   modifications (APAF
                                   75) per USAF request.
         .....................     Transfer to HH-60                                [-54,600]
                                   modifications (APAF
                                   73) per USAF request.
         .....................     Program reduction to                             [-18,113]
                                   reflect new
                                   acquisition strategy.
         .....................
         .....................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT,
                                 AIR FORCE
    97   0605807F               TEST AND EVALUATION                 654,475            50,000            704,475
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................     Program Increase......                            [50,000]
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT, AIR FORCE
   129   0207138F               F-22A SQUADRONS..........           718,432          -140,000            578,432
         .....................     Provide funds that Air                          [-140,000]
                                   Force can execute in
                                   FY12.
   191   0305159F               ENTERPRISE QUERY &                        0            20,000             20,000
                                 CORRELATION.
         .....................     Enterprise query &                                [20,000]
                                   correlation.
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH, DW
    18   0602663D8Z             DATA TO DECISIONS APPLIED             9,235            -4,000              5,235
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................     Program Decrease......                            [-4,000]
    19   0602668D8Z             CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH..             9,735            -5,000              4,735
         .....................     Program Decrease......                            [-5,000]
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT (ATD), DW
    41   0603648D8Z             JOINT CAPABILITY                    187,707           -10,000            177,707
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
         .....................     Program Decrease-                                [-10,000]
                                   Unjustified growth.
    43   0603663D8Z             DATA TO DECISIONS                     9,235            -4,000              5,235
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................     Program Decrease......                            [-4,000]
    45   0603668D8Z             CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED              10,709            -5,000              5,709
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................     Program Decrease......                            [-5,000]
    47   0603680D8Z             DEFENSE-WIDE                         17,888            30,000             47,888
                                 MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
         .....................     Program Increase-                                 [30,000]
                                   Industrial Base
                                   Innovation Fund
                                   program.
    48   0603699D8Z             EMERGING CAPABILITIES                26,972           -13,000             13,972
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................     Cargo airship                                      [2,000]
                                   demonstration.
         .....................     Pelican...............                           [-15,000]
   61A   0604775D8Z             DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION                  0           200,000            200,000
                                 PROGRAM.
         .....................     Program Increase......                           [200,000]
    68   0603901C               DIRECTED ENERGY RESEARCH.            96,329           -60,000             36,329
         .....................     Program Decrease--ALTB                           [-60,000]
    71   0603942D8Z             TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER......                 0            10,000             10,000
         .....................     Program Increase-                                 [10,000]
                                   Technology Transition
                                   Initiative.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES, DW
    83   0603881C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           290,452            20,000            310,452
                                 TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
         .....................     THAAD production                                  [20,000]
                                   improvements.
    88   0603888C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE         1,071,039           -40,000          1,031,039
                                 TEST & TARGETS.
         .....................     Program Decrease--                               [-40,000]
                                   Excess funds.
    91   0603892C               AEGIS BMD................           960,267            30,000            990,267
         .....................     SM-3 Block IB                                     [30,000]
                                   production
                                   improvements.
    99   0603907C               SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR              177,058           -20,000            157,058
                                 (SBX).
         .....................     Program Decrease--                               [-20,000]
                                   Excess funds.
   101   0603913C               ISRAELI COOPERATIVE                 106,100            50,000            156,100
                                 PROGRAMS.
         .....................     David's Sling                                     [25,000]
                                   development.
         .....................     Arrow System                                      [20,000]
                                   Improvement Program.
         .....................     Arrow-3 interceptor                                [5,000]
                                   development.
   104   0604016D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 3,221            32,100             35,321
                                 CORROSION PROGRAM.
         .....................     Program increase--                                [32,100]
                                   funding shortfall.
   111   0604881C               AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO-            424,454            20,000            444,454
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................     Program Increase-                                 [20,000]
                                   software Integration.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 DEMONSTRATION (SDD), DW
   121   0604764K               ADVANCED IT SERVICES                 49,198            20,000             69,198
                                 JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
                                 (AITS-JPO).
         .....................     Cyber threat discovery                            [20,000]
         .....................
         .....................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT,
                                 DW
   163   0605801KA              DEFENSE TECHNICAL                    56,269            -4,000             52,269
                                 INFORMATION CENTER
                                 (DTIC).
         .....................     Program Decrease......                            [-4,000]
   165   0605804D8Z             DEVELOPMENT TEST AND                 15,805             5,000             20,805
                                 EVALUATION.
         .....................     Program Increase......                             [5,000]
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT, DW
   201   0302019K               DEFENSE INFO                          8,366            20,000             28,366
                                 INFRASTRUCTURE
                                 ENGINEERING AND
                                 INTEGRATION.
         .....................     Cybersecurity pilots..                            [20,000]
   207   0303140G               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                 348,593             3,000            351,593
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
         .....................     File sanitization tool                             [3,000]
                                   (FiST).
         .....................
         .....................
         .....................  DARPA--UNDISTRIBUTED.....                            -150,000           -150,000
         .....................     Undistributed                                   [-150,000]
                                   reduction--
                                   Underexecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
    There are no committee-recommended adjustments to the budget request.
 

TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2012                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
 
             BA 04: ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
       430   OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT...........................       1,093,877         -10,000          1,083,877
               Unjustified program growth-Joint DOD Support..                         [-5,000]
               Unjustified program growth-PA Strategic                                [-5,000]
                Communications...............................
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       480   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -459,100           -459,100
               Reduction in funding for contract services....                       [-121,700]
               Reduction in funding for DoD business systems.                        [-32,500]
               Management efficiencies in the military                               [-29,900]
                intelligence program.........................
               Unobligated balances..........................                       [-275,000]
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       190   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -20,000            -20,000
               Reduction in non-dual status technician                               [-20,000]
                limitation...................................
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       710   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -298,300           -298,300
               Reduction in funding for contract services....                       [-122,800]
               Reduction in funding for DoD business systems.                        [-40,400]
               Management efficiencies in the military                               [-11,300]
                intelligence program.........................
               Unobligated balances..........................                       [-123,800]
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       210   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -28,800            -28,800
               Reduction in funding for DoD business systems.                         [-7,200]
               Unobligated balances..........................                        [-21,600]
 
             BA 04: ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       400   ADMINISTRATION..................................         662,180        -165,000            497,180
               Program decrease..............................                       [-165,000]
       420   OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES....................       1,078,769        -118,000            960,769
               Air Force funds for Space Shuttle (for museum)                        [-14,000]
               Program decrease..............................                       [-104,000]
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       470   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -353,900           -353,900
               Reduction in funding for contract services....                       [-144,200]
               Reduction in funding for DoD business systems.                        [-19,400]
               Management efficiencies in the military                               [-46,600]
                intelligence program.........................
               Unobligated balances..........................                       [-143,700]
 
             BA 04: ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
       180   DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.............         682,831        -152,280            530,551
               Reduction to Global Train and Equip...........                       [-150,000]
               Program decrease--Security Cooperation                                 [-2,280]
                Assessment Office............................
       250   OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT...................          81,754         -33,000             48,754
               Ahead of need--Guam FSRM......................                        [-33,000]
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       280   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                        -844,200           -844,200
               Reduction in funding for contract services....                        -694,800
               Reduction in funding for DoD business systems.                         -18,200
               Management efficiencies in the military                                -41,300
                intelligence program.........................
               Impact Aid....................................                          25,000
               Severe disabilities...........................                           5,000
               Unobligated balances..........................                        -119,900
 
             DEFERRED EXPENSES FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS........                         406,605            406,605
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments  (In
                                              Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2012                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
 
             BA 01: OPERATING FORCES
       150   COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM...........         425,000         -25,000            400,000
                Termination of CERP in Iraq..................                        [-25,000]
 
             AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       050   UNDISTRIBUTED...................................                         -75,000            -75,000
                Undistributed Reduction......................                        [-75,000]
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
 
             BA 01: OPERATING FORCES
       010   OPERATIONAL FORCES..............................       2,069,485          27,000          2,096,485
                Family of Shelters and Shelters Equipment....                         [27,000]
 
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
 
             BA 01: OPERATING FORCES
       020   SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND......................       3,269,939         -11,300          3,258,639
                Trans Regional Web Initiative................                        [-11,300]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
 

SEC. 4401. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          SEC. 4401. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2012                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
       010   PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS................         101,194          -6,700             94,494
                Reduction in funding for DoD business systems                         [-6,700]
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
       030   WAR RESERVE MATERIAL............................          65,372          -6,300             59,072
                Reduction in funding for DoD business systems                         [-6,300]
 
             DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,
              DEFENSE
       010   DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,         1,156,282         -39,000          1,117,282
              DEFENSE........................................
                Undistributed reduction for contractor                               [-30,000]
                support......................................
                Undistributed reduction to U.S. European                              [-5,000]
                Command's counterdrug activities.............
                Office of Naval Intelligence (PC 3359).......                         [-3,500]
                Strategic communications/program termination                            [-500]
                (PC 9220)....................................
 
             OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
       010   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................         286,919          40,500            327,419
                Program increase--Growth plan................                         [40,500]
       020   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................           1,600           2,900              4,500
                Program increase--Growth plan................                          [2,900]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4402. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SEC. 4402. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS Committee Recommended Adjustments  (In
                                              Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2012                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
       010   DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)..................         369,013         -38,500            330,513
                Reduction in funding for DoD business systems                        [-38,500]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLV--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
 

SEC. 4501. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              SEC. 4501. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Budget                            Senate
        Account               State/ Country            Installation              Project Title             Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         .......................  .......................  Military Construction, Army
Army                     Alaska                   Fort Wainwright          Aviation Complex, Ph 3A....         114,000           -57,000          57,000
Army                     Texas                    Fort Bliss               Vehicle Maintenance                  24,000           -24,000               0
                                                                            Facility.
Army                     Texas                    Fort Bliss               Infrastructure.............          14,600           -14,600               0
Army                     Virginia                 Fort Belvoir             Road and Infrastucture               31,000           -31,000               0
                                                                            Improvements.
Army                     Germany                  Germersheim              Infrastructure.............          16,500           -16,500               0
Army                     Germany                  Germersheim              Central Distribution                 21,000           -21,000               0
                                                                            Facility.
Army                     Honduras                 Honduras Various         Barracks...................          25,000            -5,000          20,000
                         .......................  .......................
                         .......................  .......................  Military Construction, Navy
Navy                     California               Bridgeport               Multi-Purpose Building--             19,238            -3,100          16,138
                                                                            Addition.
Navy                     California               Coronado                 Fitness Center North Island          46,763           -14,700          32,063
Navy                     Bahrain Island           SW Asia                  Bachelor Enlisted Quarters.          55,010           -55,010               0
Navy                     Bahrain Island           SW Asia                  Waterfront Development, Ph           45,194           -45,194               0
                                                                            4.
Navy                     Guam                     Joint Region Marianas    North Ramp Utilities--               78,654           -78,654               0
                                                                            Anderson AFB, Inc 2.
Navy                     Guam                     Joint Region Marianas    Finegayan Water Utilities..          77,267           -77,267               0
                         .......................  .......................
                         .......................  .......................  Military Construction, Air
                                                                            Force
AF                       Nebraska                 Offutt AFB               STRATCOM Replacement                150,000           -30,000         120,000
                                                                            Facility, Inc 1.
AF                       Utah                     Hill AFB                 F-35 ADAL Hangar 45E/AMU...           6,800            -6,800               0
AF                       Guam                     Joint Region Marianas    Guam Strike Fuel Systems            128,000           -64,000          64,000
                                                                            Maintenance Hangar.
AF                       Qatar                    Al Udeid                 Blatchford Preston Complex,          37,000           -37,000               0
                                                                            Ph 4.
                         .......................  .......................
                         .......................  .......................  Military Consruction,
                                                                            Defense-Wide
Def-Wide                 Colorado                 Buckley Air Force Base   Mountainview Operations             140,932           -70,500          70,432
                                                                            Facility.
Def-Wide                 Georgia                  Fort Gordon              Whitelaw Wedge Building              11,340             6,365          17,705
                                                                            Addition.
Def-Wide                 Maryland                 Fort Meade               High Performance Computing           29,640           -29,640               0
                                                                            Capacity, Inc 1.
Def-Wide                 Utah                     Camp Williams            IC CNCI Data Center 1, Inc          246,401          -123,200         123,201
                                                                            3.
Def-Wide                 Maryland                 Joint Base Andrews       Ambulatory Care Center.....         242,900          -121,500         121,400
Def-Wide                 Texas                    Fort Bliss               Hospital Replacement, Inc 3         136,700           -27,300         109,400
Def-Wide                 Texas                    Joint Base San Antonio   Ambulatory Care Center, Ph          161,300           -80,700          80,600
                                                                            3.
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    UNSPECIFIED              Unspecified Minor Milcon...           6,365            -6,365               0
Def-Wide                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    UNSPECIFIED              Planning and Design........          52,974           -15,000          37,974
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLVI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
 SECURITY PROGRAMS
 

SEC. 4601. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SEC. 4601. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS Committee Recommended Adjustments (In Thousands of
                                                    Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
                          Program                           FY 2012  Request    Senate Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
    Infrastructure security & energy restoration..........             6,187          -6,187                   0
Weapons Activities
    Stockpile systems
      W78 Stockpile systems...............................           109,518          -2,000             107,518
  Campaigns:
    Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
     campaign
      Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support....            86,259           5,000              91,259
    Readiness Campaign
      Tritium readiness...................................            77,491          -7,000              70,491
  Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
    Operations of facilities
        Kansas City Plant.................................           156,217          -5,000             151,217
  Safeguards and security
    Defense nuclear security
      Construction:
        08-D-701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los            11,752          -2,000               9,752
         Alamos National Laboratory.......................
  National security applications..........................            20,000          10,000              30,000
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
  Nonproliferation and verification R&D
    Operations and maintenance............................           417,598           9,361             426,959
  Nonproliferation and international security.............           161,833          -2,000             159,833
                   GIPP...................................                           [-2,000]
  Fissile materials disposition
    Russian surplus materials disposition.................            10,174         -10,174                   0
Defense Environmental Cleanup
  Savannah River sites:
    Nuclear material stabilization and disposition........           235,000          10,000             245,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                      Departmental Recommendations

    Ten separate legislative proposals on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 were submitted as 
executive communications to the President of the Senate by the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the 
Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the 
committee. Information on these executive communications 
appears below. All of these executive communications are 
available for review at the committee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Received in the
   Executive communication No.           Dated        committee on armed
                                                           services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC-1039.........................  March 25, 2011....  March 30, 2011
EC-1040.........................  Undated...........  March 30, 2011
EC-1355.........................  April 1, 2011.....  April 14, 2011
EC-1362.........................  April 12, 2011....  May 3, 2011
EC-1363.........................  April 12, 2011....  May 3, 2011
EC-1523.........................  Undated...........  May 10, 2011
EC-1524.........................  April 15, 2011....  May 10, 2011
EC-1746.........................  May 3, 2011.......  May 19, 2011
EC-1747.........................  May 6, 2011.......  May 19, 2011
EC-2106.........................  May 27, 2011......  June 14, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Committee Action

    The committee ordered reported, by roll call vote, a 
comprehensive original bill and, by voice vote, a series of 
original bills for the Department of Defense, military 
construction and Department of Energy authorizations.
    The committee vote to report the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 passed by roll call 
vote, 26-0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, 
Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, 
Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, 
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Collins, 
Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter. Opposed: None.
    The 6 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to 
the bill which were considered during the course of the full 
committee markup are as follows:
    1. MOTION: To conduct Full Committee markups in closed 
session because classified information will be discussed.
    VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 17-9.
    In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 
Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 
Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, and Graham.
    Opposed: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, McCain, Brown, 
Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Cornyn, and Vitter.
    2. MOTION: To place the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 
into a probationary status on December 31, 2011 for certain 
cost growth and to require termination of the program on 
December 31, 2012 should the program cost remain at least 10 
percent above the contract's target cost.
    VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 13-13.
    In Favor: Senators Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Manchin, McCain, 
Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Portman, Graham, 
and Vitter.
    Opposed: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 
Hagan, Begich, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Ayotte, 
Collins, and Cornyn.
    3. MOTION: To require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that the low-rate initial production contract for lot 5 of the 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program (aircraft funded in 
fiscal year 2011) is: (1) a fixed price contract; and (2) the 
contract requires that the contractor absorb 100 percent of 
costs above the target cost.
    VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 26-0.
    In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 
Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 
Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Graham, Cornyn, and 
Vitter.
    Opposed: None.
    4. MOTION: To strike the language in the proposed committee 
amendment relating to detainee matters that would permit the 
transfer of an unprivileged enemy belligerent for trial by an 
alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful 
jurisdiction.
    VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 7-19.
    In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Sessions, Portman, 
Ayotte, Cornyn, and Vitter.
    Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, 
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 
Blumenthal, McCain, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, Collins, and 
Graham.
    5. MOTION: To change the language in the proposed committee 
amendment relating to detainee matters so that those being held 
in military custody must either be a member of, or part of, al-
Qaeda or an affiliated entity or a participant in the course of 
planning or carrying out an attack against the United States.
    VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 10-16.
    In Favor: Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, 
Wicker, Brown, Portman, Ayotte, Cornyn, and Vitter.
    Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, Webb, 
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 
Blumenthal, McCain, Collins, and Graham.
    6. MOTION: To adopt the proposed committee amendment 
relating to detainee matters, as modified and amended.
    VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 25-1.
    In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson, 
Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 
Blumenthal, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Brown, 
Portman, Ayotte, Collins, Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter.
    Opposed: Senator Udall.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included 
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the 
legislation.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National 
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2012.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              ----------                              

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN

    In a very tough fiscal environment, this markup represents 
an effort, albeit one I am not at all satisfied with, to 
support our warfighters and the readiness of the United States 
military. Unfortunately, we could have and should have done 
much more. Against my wishes and votes, the committee chose to 
authorize hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary and 
unrequested pork-barrel projects and rejected my efforts to 
finally put a stop to the out-of-control cost overruns of the 
already unaffordable F-35 program. While the bill as a whole 
does good for our military, it is hardly a product that we 
should boast about. Americans have every right to expect more 
of us, commensurate with the sacrifices our troops and their 
families make for us every day.
    The Defense Authorization bill is an important piece of 
legislation that directly supports our troops, their readiness 
and training, and military families while our country continues 
to be engaged in two wars and supporting a NATO operation in 
Libya. Therefore, I voted to move the bill out of committee. 
Nevertheless, I will continue my efforts to fight the egregious 
and unconscionable waste and misallocation of precious 
resources in this bill during debate on the Senate floor and I 
reserve the right to oppose passage of the bill by the full 
Senate unless it is improved. I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
    The President requested $553 billion for the routine 
operations of the Department of Defense for 2012. The overall 
budget request, including funding for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, was $671 billion. This bill will reduce that 
amount byalmost $6.4 billion. But the cut is actually deeper, 
and the tangible negative impact on the real priorities of the 
Department of Defense is more serious, when we take into account that 
over $1 billion was taken from the military's request for their 
legitimate and prioritized needs and used for unrequested funding that 
was added by this Committee for pork-barrel, special interest spending 
that is not wanted by the Pentagon.
    The Defense Department has been told by President Obama to 
make some very hard decisions to find an additional $400 
billion in national security spending cuts by 2023--on top of 
the $178 billion in efficiencies and top-line reductions over 
the next five years that Secretary Gates has already announced. 
As a result, the Department cannot afford to waste a dime on 
projects that do not provide increased combat capability or a 
substantial increase in efficiency or effectiveness for the 
taxpayer and the warfighter. The Armed Services Committee must 
play its role by scrutinizing the Defense budget for programs 
that are wasteful, out of control, or are not essential to our 
core national security needs. But most importantly, this 
Committee must ensure we do not add to the problem by 
continuing business as usual by adding unneeded, unrequested 
spending. This should be our guiding principle for every 
decision we make. Sadly, that was not done in this mark up.
    For example, this bill authorizes funding for so-called 
``innovation'' and ``transition'' programs totaling $250 
million for the purpose of continuing earmarks, pure and 
simple. The funding mechanism used in this bill has been 
designed to skirt the technical definition of an earmark 
contained in Senate Rules, but make no mistake these programs 
were not requested or desired by the Pentagon. Instead of 
funding real military priorities vetted and approved by our 
most senior and experienced military leaders, these funds will 
be used to fund special interests and pet projects of 
individual Members. This is just another glaring example of why 
Congress as a whole is held in almost universal disrepute by 
the American people.
    The House of Representatives tried this same gimmick to get 
around the moratorium on earmarks in their chamber by creating 
a neat little $1 billion ``Mission Force Enhancement Transfer 
Fund'' as their pork basket in the Defense bill. That 
transparent charade fooled no one. As the Council for Citizens 
Against Government Waste noted, Members of the House readily 
seized the opportunity to turn it into a slush fund for their 
pork projects back home by ``taking $651.7 million to fund 111 
projects: 59 of the add-ons, or 53 percent appear to be similar 
to projects included as earmarks.'' That may not be what was 
intended, but clearly that is what happened.
    This bill uses a similar ruse--putting hundreds of millions 
of dollars into what amounts to slush funds of undesignated 
spending to be steered by powerful Members to their pet 
projects and special interests as a means to backdoor earmarks. 
To avoid this predictable result, I offered a series of 
amendments to strike all unrequested funding increases that 
ignored and contradicted the President's budget request. I 
regret I was not more successful.
    To highlight an example of how this works, $10 million was 
added for the ``Metals Affordability Initiative,'' something 
used to push Member-generated unrequested funding on the Air 
Force for the benefit of major defense contractors. Developing 
new, technologically superior and less-costly specialty metals 
for the aircraft industry is a valid joint interest of the 
Pentagon and the defense industry. But if this program produced 
great results as claimed, why wouldn't the Air Force fund it 
themselves, not depend on Congress to earmark the money? Rather 
than allowing economic forces to incentivize the Air Force and 
the defense industry to invest where mutual returns are high, 
this program is a self-licking ice cream cone. The Air Force 
does not ask for the money because it has higher priorities. 
Defense contractors use lobbyists to get Congress to fund the 
program, and the money the Congress supplies cuts the costs of 
research and development for defense contractors so they can 
benefit from government-sponsored research and pay for more 
lobbyists.
    This program, like many other examples of waste in the 
Pentagon budget, would not exist if it hadn't been pushed by 
Congress and funded by earmarks when the Air Force has higher 
priorities. In this case, the earmarks total $70 million since 
1999--not a small taxpayer investment. Two years ago, eight 
Senators requested $7 million each for this program as an 
acknowledged earmark. In negotiations with the House, that 
number grew to $10 million of unrequested funding and was 
authorized by Congress. Last year, 10 Senators requested $10 
million each for the initiative as an earmark. Although we 
claimed to have eliminated earmarks in our Authorization bill 
last year, $8 million was provided by our pork-loving 
colleagues in the Defense appropriations bill.
    According to watchdog groups, over $1.1 million has been 
spent on lobbying for the initiative since 2003. Last year, 
over $200,000 was spent on lobbyists for an $8 million return 
to the defense industry through government-sponsored research. 
The report you are now reading says that the Committee 
``strongly urg[es] the Air Force to institutionalize this 
program with adequate resources in future years.'' The 
straight-talk translation of that Washington babble is the 
Committee is trying to force the Air Force to burrow this 
program into their core budget so Congress doesn't have to 
earmark it. I disassociate myself from that request. This is a 
low priority program for the Air Force and I do not support 
telling a military service they should request funding for 
programs they do not deem a high military priority.
    I was able to convince the Committee to delete one item of 
unrequested spending of interest to Americans who are trying 
hard just to pay ``the bills that count.'' I was able to 
challenge and remove $6 million from the Chairman's draft bill 
that was proposed for a military utility assessment of a 
telescope searching for--if you can believe it--
extraterrestrial life.
    Unfortunately, I was not as successful in ending hundreds 
of millions of dollars of other wasteful, misallocated 
spending. For example, this bill will provide an extra $322 
million for tank upgrades that the Army no longer needs or 
wants--unrequested funding which every senior Army leader 
coming before our committee has rejected. And, that $322 
million for 2012 is just a downpayment. To keep the tank plant 
in Lima, Ohio, running until 2017 when the Army wants to start 
the next round of tank upgrades will cost about $500 million a 
year. That's four years after 2012 at about $500 million a year 
in a continuing waste of Army resources. The Army knows that 
starting the plant up again in 2017 will cost money, too, but 
the most efficient solution is to stop production in 2012 when 
the Army's current requirements have been fully met. But that's 
not the decision of this Committee. I will continue my efforts 
on the Senate floor to strip this unnecessary funding from the 
Defense Bill.
    I am also strongly opposed to the cuts taken from accounts 
required to support the warfighter that were used to fund these 
outrageous earmarks and unneeded, unrequested spending. 
Secretary Gates has sounded the alarm against excessive 
reductions in defense spending that cut into the muscle of our 
military capabilities. I could not agree with him more. I am 
acutely aware that ``budgetary cowardice,'' as Secretary 
Gatesrecently described general across-the-board reductions, is the 
path to a hollow force.
    In rejecting Secretary Gates' advice, this committee cannot 
possibly foresee the full repercussions of the cuts to the 
military services' and Defense-wide Operation and Maintenance 
(O&M) accounts that the Committee took to fund its billion-
dollar-plus shift of scarce resources to programs not requested 
by the Pentagon. But, we do know these accounts were 
extraordinarily stressed by the series of continuing 
resolutions for the first six months of Fiscal Year 2011 when 
crucial depot maintenance was deferred, contracts were delayed 
or cancelled, and civilian employees were told to expect a 
furlough. After Congress finally ended its dereliction of 
constitutional duty and provided full-year funding for the 
Defense Department in March--six months into the fiscal year--
these same O&M accounts were further stretched by our 
operations in Libya. Those costs are being borne within 
existing funding for FY11 and are now projected to reach $1.1 
billion by September 30, 2011. If the Department can find 
savings within the O&M accounts in Fiscal Year 2012 by finding 
efficiencies and reforming practices, then by all means we 
should encourage them to do it. But, we should give our 
military leadership the flexibility to fund the higher 
priorities of their selection that directly support the 
warfighter and also fund those items that were deferred during 
FY11 as a result of these unbudgeted and unexpected events. 
This bill contains over $406 million that was added 
specifically by my amendments to address this purpose, taking 
that money from the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 
program being developed with NATO allies that Defense and Army 
leaders have repeatedly testified is at high technical risk of 
failure and which will never be operationally fielded by the 
United States.
    The bill makes some minor progress in controlling the 
Defense Department's spiraling health care costs, but as with 
other challenges we faced in this bill, we could have and 
should have done more. Fulfilling the Department's request to 
link TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for working-age retirees to 
the index of National Health Expenditures per capita would have 
been the right thing to do. Instead, this bill limits future 
increases to the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for military 
retired pay, which for several years in this economic 
environment has been static. Doing so ignores the fiscal 
reality that when national health care costs increase, so do 
health care costs for the Department of Defense. As Secretary 
Gates has repeatedly testified, health care costs are ``eating 
the Department alive.'' According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, medical care could consume more than 16 per cent of the 
Defense Department's top-line by the year 2028.
    TRICARE fees haven't changed since they were established in 
1995. At that time, according to Defense Department estimates, 
working-age retirees paid about 27 percent of their total 
health care costs when using civilian care. In response to 
questions from the Committee during the markup of this bill, 
the Department confirmed thatin fiscal year 2011, out-of-pocket 
expenses for working-age retirees who are enrolled in TRICARE 
Prime and therefore pay a $460 per year fee for family 
coverage, would represent less than 9 percent of the total cost 
of the family's health care costs.
    Military retirees and their families deserve the best 
possible medical care in return for a career of military 
service to their nation, and nothing less, and that is what 
TRICARE must provide. But we cannot ignore the fact that health 
care costs will undermine the combat capability and training 
and readiness of our military in the future if we don't control 
the cost growth now. Elsewhere in this report, the committee 
notes that it plans to review options for phasing in future 
enrollment fee adjustments as early as fiscal year 2014. As a 
result, I plan to address TRICARE Prime enrollment fees when 
the bill is debated on the Senate floor. We must find an 
equitable way to both sustain the health care benefit for our 
military retirees and ensure that future health care costs do 
not undermine the needs of our troops on active duty and their 
families in the future.
    Finally, this committee has the solemn responsibility to 
our country to exercise aggressive oversight to eliminate 
weapons programs that are over cost, behind schedule, or are 
not providing improvements in combat power and capabilities. 
Last month, we heard from Defense and industry witnesses 
concerning the problem-plagued F-35 program and the potential 
for further cost overruns and production delays. If we fail to 
act now, continuing cost overruns on the F-35 of the kind we 
have experienced over the last 10 years will siphon off 
precious resources and put at risk every other major Defense 
procurement program. We simply can't stand by and let that 
happen. I offered an amendment that would have sent this 
message loudly and clearly.
    Under my amendment, the entire F-35 program would go on 
probation if on December 31, 2011, the actual cost of building 
these jets under the fixed-price contract for the fourth lot of 
aircraft exceeded the negotiated target cost by 10 percent. If, 
a year from that date, the actual cost remained at least 10 
percent above the contract's target cost, my amendment would 
have effectively required that the program start winding up. 
Probation would only have been triggered if there was a cost 
overrun of several hundred million dollars at a point on 
December 31, 2011 when only 30 percent of the work on the 
contract is expected to be completed. And I might add that, 
under this contract, even when the actual cost is 10 percent 
over the target cost, the prime contractor is still allowed a 
tidy profit that most Americans would be more than happy to 
have on an investment. So, to avoid termination of the program, 
all the contractor would have to do is absorb more of the cost 
overruns and accept less of a profit. That did not seem 
unreasonable.
    It seems to me that if costs were several hundred million 
dollars or more over the target price with 30 percent of the 
work done on a fixed-price contract, we would have a good idea 
where the F-35 program was headed. My amendment would have sent 
an unmistakable signal to the Pentagon and the prime contractor 
that we will not continue down the road of cost overruns and 
schedule delays on the F-35 simply because other alternatives 
were hard to come by. While the 13-13 vote on my amendment 
allowed the Chairman to block its adoption, I will renew my 
efforts to keep focus on constraining the costs of the F-35 
both in terms of buying the aircraft and their sustainment 
costs, which are currently estimated to be a jaw-dropping $1 
trillion over the F-35's lifecycle. As badly as new-generation 
aircraft may be needed by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine 
Corps, the F-35 cannot be allowed to drain resources from all 
the other procurement needs we face for the next 25 years.
    As an alternative to my amendment on the F-35, the bill 
requires that the contract for the fifth lot of aircraft be 
executed under a fixed price and requires the contractor to 
bear the responsibility for any cost overrun, with a carve-out 
for certain constructive changes required by the government. 
Unfortunately, I have no sense at all that leadership at the 
Department of Defense would have accepted any proposal by the 
prime contractor that the program use this type of contract 
toproduce F-35 aircraft--particularly after Secretary Gates added $7.4 
billion and 33 months to finish developing them.
    Even after Secretary Gates' efforts to restructure the 
program twice over the last year and a half, the General 
Accountability Office (GAO) found that the F-35 program still 
has considerable ``concurrency risk,'' that is, the risk of 
major, costly discoveries late in production arising from the 
overlap between development and production. I am concerned that 
the absence of a contract structure that would let the 
Department and the prime contractor work together to reduce 
that risk efficiently--which is the result imposed by the F-35 
provision adopted in the bill--could result in the contractor 
simply insisting on a much higher fixed price, or require that 
a ``risk premium'' be baked into the fee structure of the next 
lot's contract. By rejecting my amendment, I believe we lost an 
opportunity to tell the Pentagon and the prime contractor that 
increased cost on the F-35 cannot and will not be tolerated. My 
amendment sent that message strongly, simply, and powerfully. 
Its rejection is an opportunity lost when the future of the 
program hangs in the balance.
    This Nation is at a critical juncture of decisions 
concerning our conduct of three wars, our record deficit 
spending, and the dynamic state of world affairs. We cannot 
continue business as usual, and yet in too many cases that is 
exactly what this bill does. Our citizens need decisive action 
to make hard decisions and the will to carry them out. This 
bill fails to provide that leadership and continues to put off 
the hard calls and fiscal discipline that our country so 
desperately needs. I cannot, as it is currently drafted, give 
it my full support, but I will continue my efforts to improve 
the bill as it moves through the process of consideration by 
the Senate and conference negotiations with the House.

                                                       John McCain.

                   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHAMBLISS

    While I cosponsored the underlying Levin, McCain, and 
Graham Amendment relating to detainee matters, I remain 
concerned about several provisions concerning the detention and 
transfer of terrorist detainees. Many of these concerns would 
have been alleviated by amendments that I and other members 
offered during mark-up, some of which were considered outside 
the Committee's jurisdiction. I also note that there appears to 
be some confusion about the role and capabilities of the High-
Value Detainee Interrogation Group established last year as a 
result of the President's Executive Order 13491. I believe all 
of these issues must be resolved before the Senate takes final 
action on this bill.

                                                   Saxby Chambliss.

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE

Strategic Airlift Aircraft Force Structure
    The U.S. Air Force (USAF) proposed fiscal year 2012 budget 
requests that the currently-mandated 316 airlift aircraft fleet 
inventory minimum be repealed. As recently as June 16, 2011, in 
a letter to Chairman Levin, USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Operations, Plans, and Requirements, Lieutenant General Herbert 
Carlisle states, ``after extensive study, the Air Force remains 
convinced that our nation's strategic airlift requirement will 
be met with 299 C-5s and C-17s.''
    I applaud the Air Force's attempt to right-size the 
nation's strategic airlift force structure while ensuring the 
U.S. military can continue to meet the strategic airlift 
requirement. After extensive study as recent as 2010, the USAF 
has identified a peak of demand for airlift capacity at 32.7 
Million Ton Miles per Day (MTM/D). According to the Mobility 
Capabilities and Requirements Study-2016, this peak demand of 
32.7 MTM/D can be met by 223 C-17s, 52 C-5Ms and 24 C-5As; 
totaling 299 strategic airlift aircraft. The programmed fleet 
of 222 C-17s and 79 C-5s provides a capacity of 33.31 MTM/D, 
which exceeds peak demand.
    By allowing the Air Force to reduce the fleet to 299 
aircraft, according to the Air Force, the U.S. Government would 
avoid paying more than $1.23 billion in unprogrammed 
expenditures including maintenance costs and flying hours 
through fiscal year 2016 and costly investments in avionics 
upgrades and maintenance for aircraft slated for retirement. In 
this time of fiscal crisis when we must reduce federal 
spending, the Department of Defense (DoD) should not be 
required to spend millions of dollars maintaining aircraft that 
DoD does not need.
    Some have expressed concern about the impact on C-5s. It is 
important to note that if allowed to reduce the fleet, DoDwould 
retire early-model C-5s (e.g., Alpha Model) and that not all C-5s would 
be retired. Late-model C-5s will continue to be an important part of 
the fleet for decades to come, as well as the associated C-5 
maintenance and supply chain.
    This fleet reduction would allow the Air Force to reinvest 
approximately $1.14 billion into C-17 program development, 
including operation and maintenance, personnel, and increased 
flying hours for three C-17 Air Reserve Component unit 
conversions. This fleet reduction would save millions of 
dollars and ensure that the U.S. continues to have a robust 
national strategic airlift readiness posture.
    I am disappointed that the committee chose not to include 
the Air Force's legislative proposal in the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2012 to lower the floor for large cargo 
aircraft. I will continue to work to repeal this statutory 
burden on our military.

Detainee Compromise

    I applaud the committee for its effort to develop common 
sense detainee policies. As reported by the committee, I 
believe the compromise detainee language contains several 
positive elements. Some examples include:
          --Acknowledgement of the authority to detain 
        unprivileged enemy belligerents pursuant to the 
        authorization of the use of force,
          ----the requirements for certifications relating to 
        transfer of detainees, the prohibition on the use of 
        funds for facilities in the U.S. for detainees,
          --the annual detention review,
          --the procedures for status determination of 
        unprivileged enemy belligerents, and
          --the clarification of right to plead guilty in trial 
        of capital offense by military commission.
    I believe these positive aspects of the compromise were 
strengthened by the adoption of two of my amendments. The first 
amendment related to the prohibition on the use of funds to 
construct or modify facilities in the U.S. to house detainees 
transferred from Guantanamo. According to the original 
language, this prohibition would have only lasted for fiscal 
year 2012, but my amendment made this prohibition permanent. I 
think the American people have been very clear that they do not 
want terrorists detained in the United States--not just next 
fiscal year but for years to come. My second amendment adopted 
by the committee required military custody not just for attacks 
or attempted attacks against the United States, but also 
against our coalition partners. This amendment was necessary in 
order to send a clear message of unity to our coalition 
partners and enemies alike.
    Despite these positive components of the compromise 
amendment, as well as the two changes that were adopted, three 
significant problems remain. The first problem is that the 
compromise language allows unprivileged enemy belligerents to 
be transferred for trial by an alternative court--including an 
Article III civilian court. We are at war with violent 
extremists, including al Qaeda and associated forces, who have 
killed thousands of Americans and who continue their efforts to 
murder the innocent. Military tribunals are the appropriate 
venue for bringing justice to terrorists. These tribunals 
shield American communities from the security concerns that 
would accompany a civilian trial in the United States, and 
military tribunals are better equipped to protect the 
classified information that often arises in a terrorist trial.
    A second significant problem in the compromise relates to 
who is required to be held in military custody. The current 
language says a ``member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an 
affiliated entity and a participant in the course of planning 
or carrying out and an attack or attempted attack against the 
United States or its coalition partners.'' The incorporation of 
``and'' instead of ``or'' would result in a significant 
population of terrorists not being required to be held in 
military custody. Under the current language, members of al 
Qaeda who are not currently planning or engaging in an attack 
would not be required to be held in military custody. For 
example, spiritual advisors, financial facilitators, body 
guards, and couriers not currently planning an attack would not 
be required to be held in military custody.
    The third problem with the compromise language relates to 
the recidivism waiver. I do not believe the waiver authority 
should include the ability to send Guantanamo detainees to 
countries that have released terrorists who have returned to 
the fight. As Secretary Gates and Under Secretary Vickers have 
testified, 25% of those released have returned to the fight or 
are suspected of returning to the fight. I do not believe we 
should be sending terrorist detainees to countries that have 
proven themselves unable to prevent recidivism.
    Said al Shihri and Abdul Zakir are former Guantanamo 
detainees who have been released. One is a leader in al Qaeda 
in the Arabian Peninsula, the other a leader in the Taliban in 
Afghanistan. If these former Guantanamo detainees or others who 
could be released via the recidivism waiver kill Americans, it 
would be very difficult to justify to families of the deceased 
why we chose to transfer a terrorist to a country with a known 
recidivism problem. I do not believe the national security 
waiver should allow transfers to countries with a track record 
of releasing terrorists who return to the fight.
    I look forward to addressing these shortcomings in the 
detainee compromise on the floor of the Senate. I also look 
forward to addressing our nation's interrogation policies to 
ensure our intelligence community--consistent with our values 
and all applicable law--has the necessary tools to keep us 
safe.

                                                      Kelly Ayotte.

                                  

```