" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

111–35 

Calendar No. 89 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1390]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY 2, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of June 25, 2009 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1 

50–630 

" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2009

111–35 

Calendar No. 89 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1390]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY 2, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of June 25, 2009 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

(111th Congress, 1st Session) 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

JOSEPH W. BOWAB, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

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

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

Division A–Department of Defense Authorizations .............................................. 5 

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 5 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 5 

Subtitle B—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 12 

Treatment of Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 111) .................................................................. 12 

Report on strategic plan for homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship 

(sec. 112) ................................................................................................. 13 

Procurement programs for future naval surface combatants (sec. 

113) ......................................................................................................... 13 

Report on a service life extension program for Oliver Hazard Perry 

class frigates (sec. 114) .......................................................................... 14 

Subtitle C—Air Force Matters ........................................................................ 14 

Limitation on retirement of C–5 aircraft (sec. 121) ................................ 14 

Revised availability of certain funds available for the F–22A fighter 

aircraft (sec. 122) ................................................................................... 14 

Report on potential foreign military sales of the F–22A fighter aircraft (sec. 123) ........................................................................................ 15 

Next generation bomber aircraft (sec. 124) ............................................. 15 

Subtitle D—Joint and Multiservice Matters .................................................. 16 

Modification of nature of data link utilizable by tactical unmanned 

aerial vehicles (sec. 131) ........................................................................ 16 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 16 

Army ........................................................................................................... 16 

Extended range multi-purpose Sky Warrior .................................... 16 

CH–47 multiyear procurement execution ........................................ 16 

Apache AH–64 fuselage manufacturing ........................................... 16 

Blackhawk UH–60A conversion to UH–60L .................................... 17 

Air warrior ensemble generation III ................................................. 17 

Patriot command and control modifications .................................... 17 

60mm mortars Army .......................................................................... 17 

Bomb line modernization ................................................................... 17 

Mine protection vehicle family .......................................................... 17 

Joint tactical radio system ................................................................ 18 

Night vision devices ........................................................................... 18 

Fido explosives detector ..................................................................... 18 

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program ....................... 19 

Operator driving simulators .............................................................. 19 

Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System ................. 19 

Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System ........................................... 19 

Urban training center instrumentation ........................................... 19 

Virtual Interactive Combat Environment System ........................... 19 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 20 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund ............................. 20 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 20 

F/A–18E/F ........................................................................................... 20 

UH–1Y/AH–1Z .................................................................................... 22 

Weapons industrial facilities ............................................................. 23 

Multiple User Objective System ....................................................... 23 

Smart valves ....................................................................................... 23 

TB–33 thinline towed array .............................................................. 23 

Man overboard indicators .................................................................. 23 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

IV 

Title I—Procurement—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 24 

F–22A fighter aircraft ........................................................................ 24 

Global Hawk ....................................................................................... 25 

C–130 Avionics Modernization Program .......................................... 25 

Advanced targeting pod ..................................................................... 25 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ................................................ 26 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ................................................ 26 

Halvorsen loaders ............................................................................... 26 

Unmanned modular threat emitter modernization ......................... 26 

Joint threat emitter ........................................................................... 26 

Application software .......................................................................... 27 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund ................................... 27 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund ............................ 27 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 27 

MC–130W multi-mission modifications ............................................ 27 

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher .......................................... 28 

Special operations visual augmentation systems ............................ 28 

Special operations forces multi-band inter/intra team radio .......... 28 

M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask ............................. 28 

Procurement of computing services .................................................. 29 

Items of Special Interest ........................................................................... 29 

Body armor protocol and requirements ............................................ 29 

Irregular warfare in the Navy .......................................................... 30 

Joint cargo aircraft ............................................................................. 31 

Reports to Congress on up-armored high mobility multipurpose 

wheeled vehicles and mine resistant ambush protected vehicle 32 

Unmanned aerial vehicle planning ................................................... 32 

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 35 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 35 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 35 

Continued development of competitive propulsion system for the 

Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211) ............................................... 35 

Enhancement of duties of Director of Department of Defense Test 

Resource Management Center with respect to the major range 

and test facility base(sec. 212) .............................................................. 36 

Guidance on specification of funding requested for operation, 

sustainment, modernization, and personnel of major ranges and 

test facilities (sec. 213) .......................................................................... 36 

Permanent authority for the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel (sec. 214) .......................................................................... 36 

Extension and enhancement of Global Research Watch program (sec. 

215) ......................................................................................................... 37 

Three-year extension of authority for prizes for advanced technology 

achievements (sec. 216) ......................................................................... 37 

Modification of report requirements regarding defense science and 

technology program (sec. 217) ............................................................... 37 

Programs for ground combat vehicle and self propelled howitzer capabilities for the Army (sec. 218) ............................................................. 38 

Assessment of technological maturity and integration risk of Army 

modernization programs (sec. 219) ....................................................... 39 

Assessment of strategy for technology for modernization of the combat vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle fleets (sec. 220) ................... 40 

Systems engineering and prototyping program (sec. 221) ..................... 40 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 41 

Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 241) ....................... 41 

Comprehensive plan for test and evaluation of the ballistic missile 

defense system (sec. 242) ...................................................................... 41 

Assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (sec. 243) .................... 42 

Report on potential missile defense cooperation with Russia (sec. 

244) ......................................................................................................... 43 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 43 

Repeal of requirement for biennial Joint Warfighting Science and 

Technology Plan (sec. 251) .................................................................... 43 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 43 

Army ........................................................................................................... 43 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

V 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

Army basic research ........................................................................... 43 

Minerva ............................................................................................... 43 

Materials technologies ....................................................................... 44 

Sensor research .................................................................................. 44 

Manned-unmanned systems teaming ............................................... 44 

Advanced concepts and simulation ................................................... 45 

Ground vehicle research .................................................................... 45 

Army electromagnetic gun ................................................................. 45 

Reactive armor technologies .............................................................. 46 

Acoustic sensors systems ................................................................... 46 

Army electronics research ................................................................. 46 

Military engineering technology ....................................................... 46 

Ballistic protection systems ............................................................... 47 

Medical technologies .......................................................................... 47 

Army advanced medical research and technologies ........................ 48 

Army aviation technologies ............................................................... 48 

Army weapons and munitions technology ........................................ 49 

Alternative energy research .............................................................. 49 

Robotic systems .................................................................................. 49 

Tire development for joint light tactical vehicle program ............... 50 

Vehicle energy and power programs ................................................. 50 

Water analysis technologies .............................................................. 50 

Training and simulation systems ..................................................... 50 

Mid-size unmanned ground vehicles ................................................ 50 

Aircraft survivability systems ........................................................... 51 

Advanced imaging technologies ........................................................ 51 

Bradley third generation forward looking infrared ......................... 51 

Military engineering systems ............................................................ 51 

Counter-mortar radar systems .......................................................... 51 

Advanced environmental controls ..................................................... 52 

Advanced electronics integration ...................................................... 52 

Adaptive robotic technology .............................................................. 52 

Joint future theater lift ..................................................................... 52 

Logistics and engineer equipment-advanced development ............. 55 

Next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology ................... 55 

Type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun ..... 55 

Future combat system non-line of sight cannon .............................. 55 

Future combat system manned ground vehicles and common 

ground vehicle ................................................................................. 56 

Urban training development ............................................................. 57 

Common guidance control module .................................................... 57 

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

3D woven preform technology for Army munitions ......................... 58 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System ....................................................................................... 58 

TOW missile improvements .............................................................. 59 

Joint tactical ground station ............................................................. 59 

Collection management tools development ...................................... 59 

A160 hummingbird ............................................................................ 59 

Army manufacturing technologies .................................................... 61 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 61 

Navy basic research ........................................................................... 61 

Energetics research ............................................................................ 61 

Navy force protection research .......................................................... 61 

Warfighter sustainment technologies ............................................... 62 

Advanced antenna technologies ........................................................ 62 

Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research ......................... 62 

Undersea warfare systems ................................................................ 63 

Low observable platforms .................................................................. 63 

Mobile intelligence and tracking systems ........................................ 63 

Force protection advanced technology .............................................. 63 

High-integrity global positioning system ......................................... 64 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations ....................... 64 

Semi-submersible unmanned undersea vehicle ............................... 64 

Sonobouy wave energy module ......................................................... 65 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

VI 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy—Continued 

Shipboard system component development ..................................... 65 

Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project .............................. 65 

Marine Corps ground combat/support systems ............................... 65 

Model-based management decision tools for ground vehicles ........ 66 

Navy energy program ........................................................................ 66 

Navy energy research ........................................................................ 66 

Optical interconnect ........................................................................... 66 

Radio frequency identification technology program ........................ 67 

Mobile maritime sensor development ............................................... 67 

Submarine communications at speed and depth ............................. 68 

Mold-in-place coating development ................................................... 68 

New design SSN ................................................................................. 68 

Submarine tactical warfare system .................................................. 69 

Automated fiber optic manufacturing .............................................. 69 

Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle ........................................... 70 

Next-generation Phalanx ................................................................... 70 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 70 

Navy medical research ....................................................................... 71 

Navy information technology programs ........................................... 71 

Navy test and evaluation programs ................................................. 71 

Advanced linear accelerator facility ................................................. 71 

Expandable rigid wall composite shelter ......................................... 71 

Marine personnel carrier support system ........................................ 71 

Ultrasonic consolidation for smart armor applications ................... 72 

High performance capabilities for military vehicles ....................... 72 

Mobile User Objective System .......................................................... 72 

Navy manufacturing technology ....................................................... 73 

National Shipbuilding Research Program-Advanced Shipbuilding 

Enterprise ....................................................................................... 73 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 74 

Air Force basic research .................................................................... 74 

Air Force materials research ............................................................. 74 

Aerospace vehicle technologies .......................................................... 75 

Air Force propulsion research ........................................................... 75 

Reconfigurable electronics and software .......................................... 76 

Seismic research program ................................................................. 76 

Chemical laser research .................................................................... 76 

High energy laser research ............................................................... 76 

Air Force advanced materials research ............................................ 76 

Air Force advanced propulsion systems ........................................... 77 

Air Force manufacturing technology ................................................ 77 

Optical interconnect technologies ..................................................... 77 

Space Protection Program ................................................................. 77 

Space situational awareness ............................................................. 78 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Demonstration/Validation ......... 78 

Operationally Responsive Space ....................................................... 79 

Small imaging satellite competitive prototyping ............................. 79 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System ............................................................................................. 80 

Internet routing in space ................................................................... 80 

Next-generation military satellite communications ........................ 81 

B–1B bomber active electronically scanned array radar ................ 81 

Space-based Infrared System ............................................................ 81 

Joint Strike Fighter ........................................................................... 82 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ................................................ 82 

Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft .......................... 83 

Air Force test and evaluation ............................................................ 83 

Multi-platform radar technology insertion program ....................... 83 

Wide-area airborne surveillance ....................................................... 84 

Multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid ............................................... 85 

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

Biometric signature and passive physiological monitoring ............ 86 

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

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research .............................................................................................. 86 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

VII 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Defense-wide—Continued 

In-vitro models for bio-defense vaccines ........................................... 86 

Information and communications technology .................................. 86 

Cognitive computing .......................................................................... 87 

Biological decontamination research ................................................ 87 

Chemical and biological infrared detector ........................................ 87 

Funding for meritorious bio-defense projects ................................... 87 

Tactical technology ............................................................................. 88 

Blast mitigation and protection ........................................................ 88 

Combating terrorism technologies .................................................... 88 

Advanced aerospace systems ............................................................. 88 

Integrated Sensor is Structure .......................................................... 89 

Joint capability technology demonstrations ..................................... 89 

High performance defense manufacturing technology program ..... 89 

Defense Logistics Agency energy research ....................................... 90 

High performance computing ............................................................ 90 

Deep green .......................................................................................... 90 

Small unmanned aerial vehicle detection system ........................... 90 

Quick Reaction Fund ......................................................................... 90 

Special warfare situational awareness systems .............................. 91 

Joint Forces Command activities ...................................................... 91 

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

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution issues ...... 91 

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector ...................................... 92 

Airborne infrared surveillance technology ....................................... 92 

Aegis ballistic missile defense ........................................................... 92 

Short-range ballistic missile defense ................................................ 93 

Corrosion control research ................................................................. 94 

Systems engineering and prototyping program ............................... 94 

Test and evaluation programs .......................................................... 94 

Cyber test range ................................................................................. 94 

Technology applications for security enhancement ......................... 94 

Policy decision point technology ........................................................ 95 

Software assurance courseware development .................................. 95 

Policy research, development, test, and evaluation ........................ 95 

Logistics manufacturing research ..................................................... 95 

Long endurance unattended ground sensor technologies ............... 96 

Items of Special Interest ........................................................................... 96 

Ballistic missile defense overview ..................................................... 96 

Federally funded research and development centers ...................... 98 

Ground/air task oriented radar ......................................................... 98 

Israeli upper tier missile defense ..................................................... 98 

KC–X tanker replacement program .................................................. 99 

Laboratory recapitalization and sustainment issues ...................... 99 

Net-Enabled Command Capability ................................................... 100 

Test and evaluation workforce .......................................................... 101 

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance ........................................... 101 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 103 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 103 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 103 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 

in connection with the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site, 

Suffolk, Virginia (sec. 311) .................................................................... 103 

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

Modification of authority for Army industrial facilities to engage 

in cooperative activities with non-Army entities (sec. 321) ................ 103 

Improvement of inventory management practices (sec. 322) ................. 103 

Temporary suspension of authority for public-private competitions 

(sec. 323) ................................................................................................. 103 

Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 324) ................. 104 

Modification of date for submittal to Congress of annual report on 

funding for public and private performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads (sec. 325) ................................................. 104 

Subtitle D—Energy Provisions ........................................................................ 104 

Energy security on Department of Defense installations (sec. 331) ..... 104 

Extension and expansion of reporting requirements regarding Department of Defense energy efficiency programs (sec. 332) ............... 105 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

VIII 

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued 

Subtitle D—Energy Provisions—Continued 

Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 333) .......................................... 105 

Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational Energy 

(sec. 334) ................................................................................................. 105 

Subtitle E—Reports .......................................................................................... 105 

Study on Army modularity (sec. 341) ...................................................... 105 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 107 

Army ........................................................................................................... 107 

Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System .............. 107 

Funding for strategic planning and implementation of interagency training, education, and research in support of rule 

of law operations ............................................................................. 107 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 107 

Naval aviation depot maintenance ................................................... 107 

Naval ship depot maintenance .......................................................... 108 

Transfer of funding from overseas contingency operations to base 

budget .............................................................................................. 108 

United States Joint Forces Command National Program for 

Small Unit Excellence .................................................................... 108 

Gun depot overhauls .......................................................................... 109 

Naval Strike Air Warfare Center training ....................................... 109 

Marine Corps ............................................................................................. 109 

Advanced load bearing equipment .................................................... 109 

Marine Corps shelters ....................................................................... 109 

Cold Weather Layering System ........................................................ 109 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 109 

Mission essential airfield operations equipment ............................. 109 

National Security Space Institute .................................................... 110 

Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements ................ 110 

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 110 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative ....................... 110 

Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational Energy .................................................................................................. 111 

Defense readiness reporting system ................................................. 111 

Commercial imagery acquisition ....................................................... 112 

Department of Defense Education Activity Operations & Maintenance funding ................................................................................. 113 

Undistributed bulk fuel savings ....................................................... 113 

Software licenses ................................................................................ 113 

Army Reserve ............................................................................................ 113 

Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve ...................................... 113 

Army National Guard ............................................................................... 113 

Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard ......................... 113 

Controlled humidity protection ......................................................... 113 

Unobligated Balances ................................................................................ 114 

Unobligated balances decrease in funding ....................................... 114 

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

Army organizational structure and personnel requirements ................ 114 

Continued assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant 

command operational plans .................................................................. 116 

Cost-benefit analysis of depot maintenance workload associated with 

AV–8B Harrier weapons system .......................................................... 116 

Depot-level maintenance and repair ........................................................ 116 

Pollution Prevention Program .................................................................. 117 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 119 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 119 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 119 

Additional authority for increases of Army active duty end strengths 

for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 (sec. 402) ............................................. 120 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 120 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 120 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 120 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 121 

Fiscal year 2010 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 121 

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 121 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

IX 

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations—Continued 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces—Continued 

Report on trainee account for the Army National Guard (sec. 416) ..... 122 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 122 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 122 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 122 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 122 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 123 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 123 

Modification of limitations on general and flag officers on active 

duty (sec. 501) ........................................................................................ 123 

Revisions to annual report requirement on joint officer management 

(sec. 502) ................................................................................................. 123 

Grade of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff (sec. 503) ........................................................................................ 123 

Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force (sec. 504) ......... 123 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 123 

Report on requirements of the National Guard for non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 511) ............................................................................. 123 

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 124 

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 521) ..................................................................................... 124 

Expansion of criteria for appointment as member of the Board of 

Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences (sec. 522) .................................................................................. 124 

Detail of commissioned officers as students at schools of psychology 

(sec. 523) ................................................................................................. 124 

Subtitle D—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters ................................... 125 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 531) ..................................... 125 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 532) ..................... 125 

Two-year extension of authority for assistance to local educational 

agencies with enrollment changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations (sec. 533) ........................................ 125 

Permanent authority for enrollment in defense dependents’ education 

system of dependents of foreign military members assigned to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (sec. 534) ...................... 125 

Study on options for educational opportunities for dependent children 

of members of the armed forces who do not attend Department 

of Defense dependents schools (sec. 535) ............................................. 126 

Sense of Senate on the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children (sec. 536) ................................................. 126 

Subtitle E—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters ......................... 126 

Independent review of judge advocate requirements of the Department of the Navy (sec. 541) .................................................................. 126 

Subtitle F—Military Family Readiness Matters ............................................ 127 

Additional members on the Department of Defense Military Family 

Readiness Council (sec. 551) ................................................................. 127 

Comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance use disorders and disposition of substance abuse offenders 

in the armed forces (sec. 552) ............................................................... 127 

Military community support for children with autism and their families (sec. 553) .......................................................................................... 128 

Reports on effects of deployments on military children and the availability of mental health care and counseling services for military 

children (sec. 554) .................................................................................. 128 

Report on child custody litigation involving service of members of 

the armed forces (sec. 555) .................................................................... 129 

Sense of Senate on preparation and coordination of family care plans 

(sec. 556) ................................................................................................. 130 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 130 

Deadline for report on sexual assault in the armed forces by Defense 

Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (sec. 571) ..... 130 

Clarification of performance policies for military musical units and 

musicians (sec. 572) ............................................................................... 130 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 131 

Alaska Territorial Guard .......................................................................... 131 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

X 

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Cultural and language proficiency ........................................................... 131 

Inspector General review of post-trial processes for court-martial 

record preparation and appellate review within the Department 

of the Navy ............................................................................................. 131 

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program .................................................... 133 

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 135 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 135 

Fiscal year 2010 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 135 

Comptroller General of the United States comparative assessment 

of military and private-sector pay and benefits (sec. 602) ................. 135 

Increase in maximum monthly amount of supplemental subsistence 

allowance for low-income members with dependents (sec. 603) ........ 135 

Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program for certain periods before implementation of program (sec. 

604) ......................................................................................................... 136 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 136 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for Reserve 

forces (sec. 611) ...................................................................................... 136 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health 

care professionals (sec. 612) .................................................................. 136 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers 

(sec. 613) ................................................................................................. 137 

Extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, 

incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .................................. 137 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 bonuses 

and special pays (sec. 615) .................................................................... 137 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec. 

616) ......................................................................................................... 137 

Special compensation for members of the uniformed services with 

combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living (sec. 617) ......................................................... 137 

Temporary authority for monthly special pay for members of the 

armed forces subject to continuing active duty or service under 

stop-loss authorities (sec. 618) .............................................................. 138 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 138 

Travel and transportation allowances for designated individuals of 

wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed services for 

duration of inpatient treatment (sec. 631) ........................................... 138 

Travel and transportation allowances for non-medical attendants of 

seriously wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed services (sec. 632) .......................................................................................... 138 

Travel and transportation allowances for members of the Reserve 

components of the armed forces on leave for suspension of training 

(sec. 633) ................................................................................................. 139 

Reimbursement of travel expenses of members of the armed forces 

on active duty and their dependents for travel for specialty care 

under exceptional circumstances (sec. 634) ......................................... 139 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 139 

Authority to continue provision of incentives after termination of 

temporary Army authority to provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 651) ........................................................................................ 139 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 139 

Patriot Express .......................................................................................... 139 

Travel for active-duty personnel receiving treatment at Department 

of Veteran Affairs facilities ................................................................... 140 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions ......................................................................... 141 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 141 

TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the Retired 

Reserve, and family members, who are qualified for a non-regular 

retirement but are not yet age 60 (sec. 701) ....................................... 141 

Expansion of eligibility of survivors under the TRICARE Dental Program (sec. 702) ....................................................................................... 141 

Constructive eligibility for TRICARE benefits of certain persons otherwise ineligible under retroactive determination of entitlement 

to Medicare Part A hospital insurance benefits (sec. 703) ................. 141 

Reform and improvement of the TRICARE program (sec. 704) ............ 142 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XI 

Title VII—Health Care Provisions—Continued 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program—Continued 

Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation 

of requirements on the relationship between the TRICARE program and employer-sponsored group health plans (sec. 705) ............ 143 

Subtitle B—Other Health Care Benefits ........................................................ 143 

Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces deployed 

in connection with a contingency operation (sec. 711) ........................ 143 

Enhancement of transitional dental care for members of the reserve 

components on active duty for more than 30 days in support of 

a contingency operation (sec. 712) ........................................................ 143 

Subtitle C—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 144 

Comprehensive policy on pain management by the military health 

care system (sec. 721) ............................................................................ 144 

Plan to increase the behavioral health capabilities of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 722) .............................................................................. 144 

Department of Defense study on management of medications for 

physically and psychologically wounded members of the armed 

forces (sec. 723) ...................................................................................... 145 

Subtitle D—Wounded Warrior Matters .......................................................... 145 

Report on cognitive rehabilitation for members of the armed forces 

with traumatic brain injury (sec. 731) ................................................. 145 

Department of Defense task force on the care, management, and 

transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured members of the 

armed forces (sec. 732) .......................................................................... 145 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 146 

Comptroller General study on Department of Defense efforts to minimize and track military service hearing loss ...................................... 146 

Continued Department of Defense and military department support 

for suicide prevention ............................................................................ 147 

Help for wounded, ill, and injured service members .............................. 148 

Report on case management services for TRICARE beneficiaries with 

severe mental health conditions ........................................................... 149 

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 151 

Subtitle A—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 151 

Contract authority for advanced development of prototype units (sec. 

801) ......................................................................................................... 151 

Justification and approval of sole-source contracts (sec. 802) ............... 151 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 151 

Reporting requirements for programs that qualify as both major 

automated information system programs and major defense acquisition programs (sec. 811) ..................................................................... 151 

Funding of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 812) ............................................................................. 152 

Enhancement of expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition 

workforce positions (sec. 813) ............................................................... 152 

Treatment of non-defense agency procurements under joint programs 

with the Department of Defense under limitations on non-defense 

agency procurements on behalf of the Department of Defense (sec. 

814) ......................................................................................................... 152 

Comptroller General of the United States report on training of acquisition and audit personnel of the Department of Defense (sec. 815) . 152 

Subtitle C—Contractor Matters ...................................................................... 153 

Authority for government support contractors to have access to technical data belonging to prime contractors (sec. 821) .......................... 153 

Extension and enhancement of authorities on the Commission on 

Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 822) .................. 153 

Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec. 

823) ......................................................................................................... 153 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 154 

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in 

Central Asia, Pakistan, and the South Caucasus (sec. 831) .............. 154 

Small arms production industrial base matters (sec. 832) .................... 154 

Extension of SBIR and STTR business programs of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 833) .............................................................................. 154 

Expansion and permanent authority for small business innovation 

research commercialization program (sec. 834) .................................. 155 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XII 

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

Subtitle D—Other Matters—Continued 

Measures to ensure the safety of facilities, infrastructure, and equipment for military operations (sec. 835) ................................................ 155 

Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item 

breakout list (sec. 836) .......................................................................... 155 

Defense Science Board report on rare earth materials in the defense 

supply chain (sec. 837) .......................................................................... 155 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 156 

Contractor reimbursement for environmental remediation costs ......... 156 

Knowledge management and decision support systems ........................ 156 

Licensing fees for enterprise resource planning software ...................... 157 

Performance by private security contractors of certain functions in 

an area of combat operations ................................................................ 157 

Requirements management for weapon system acquisitions before 

milestone B ............................................................................................. 158 

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 161 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 161 

Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and Assistant Secretaries of 

Defense (sec. 901) .................................................................................. 161 

Repeal of certain limitations on personnel and consolidation of reports on major Department of Defense headquarters activities (sec. 

902) ......................................................................................................... 161 

Sense of Senate on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security 

Cooperation (sec. 903) ............................................................................ 161 

Subtitle B—Space Matters .............................................................................. 162 

Provision of space situational awareness services and information 

to non-United States Government entities (sec. 911) ......................... 162 

Plan for management and funding of National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite system program (sec. 912) ............... 162 

Subtitle C—Intelligence Matters ..................................................................... 164 

Inclusion of Defense Intelligence Agency in authority to use proceeds 

from counterintelligence operations (sec. 921) .................................... 164 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 164 

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 931) ................................ 164 

Instruction of private sector employees in cyber security courses of 

the Defense Cyber Investigations Training Academy (sec. 932) ........ 165 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 165 

Commercial communications anti-jamming study .................................. 165 

Deep Space Climate Observatory ............................................................. 166 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance task force ...................... 167 

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 169 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 169 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 169 

Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1002) ............................................................................................... 169 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 169 

Temporary reduction in minimum number of aircraft carriers in active service (sec. 1011) ........................................................................... 169 

Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels of the strike 

forces of the Unites States Navy (sec. 1012) ....................................... 170 

Sense of Senate on the maintenance of a 313-ship Navy (sec. 1013) ... 170 

Designation of USS Constitution as America’s ship of state (sec. 

1014) ....................................................................................................... 171 

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 171 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 171 

High priority National Guard counterdrug programs ............................ 171 

Mobile sensor barrier ................................................................................ 172 

United States European Command Counterdrug activities .................. 172 

Relocatable over-the-horizon radar .......................................................... 172 

Fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justification documents ............ 172 

Extension and modification of authority to provide additional support 

for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 

1021) ....................................................................................................... 173 

One-year extension of authority for joint task forces support to law 

enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities (sec. 

1022) ....................................................................................................... 174 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XIII 

Title X—General Provisions—Continued 

Summary—Continued 

One-year extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1023) ........................... 174 

Subtitle D—Military Commissions ................................................................. 175 

Military commissions (sec. 1031) ............................................................. 175 

Subtitle E—Medical Facility Matters ............................................................. 176 

Medical Facility Matters (sec. 1041–1047) .............................................. 176 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Requirements, Authorities, and Limitations ..... 177 

Congressional earmarks relating to the Department of Defense (sec. 

1051) ....................................................................................................... 177 

National strategic five-year plan for improving the nuclear forensic 

and attribution capabilities of the United States (sec. 1052) ............. 177 

One-year extension of authority to offer and make rewards for assistance in combating terrorism through government personnel of allied forces (sec. 1053) ............................................................................. 178 

Business process reengineering (sec. 1054) ............................................. 178 

Responsibility for preparation of biennial Global Positioning System 

report (sec. 1055) ................................................................................... 178 

Additional subpoena authority for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (sec. 1056) ........................................................... 178 

Reports on bandwidth requirements for major defense acquisition 

programs and major system acquisition programs (sec. 1057) .......... 178 

Multiyear contracts under pilot program on commercial fee-for-service air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 1058) ........................ 179 

Subtitle G—Reports ......................................................................................... 179 

National intelligence estimate on nuclear aspirations of non-state 

entities and nuclear weapons and related programs in non-nuclearweapons states and countries not parties to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (sec. 1071) ............................................................ 179 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of military 

whistleblower protections (sec. 1072) ................................................... 180 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 180 

Transfer of Navy aircraft N40VT (sec. 1081) .......................................... 180 

Conveyance of Big Crow aircraft (sec. 1082) ........................................... 180 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 181 

National cyber security initiative ............................................................ 181 

Ship decommissioning ............................................................................... 182 

Strategic communications and public diplomacy .................................... 182 

Title XI—Civilian Personnel Matters .................................................................... 185 

Repeal of National Security Personnel System; Department of Defense personnel authorities (sec. 1101) ................................................ 185 

Extension and modification of experimental personnel management 

program for scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1102) ................. 185 

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

employees working overseas (sec. 1103) .............................................. 185 

Availability of funds for compensation of certain civilian employees 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 1104) ............................................ 186 

Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (sec. 1105) ........ 186 

Review of defense laboratories for participation in defense laboratory 

personnel demonstration projects (sec. 1106) ...................................... 186 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 187 

Utilization of hiring authorities for civilian health care professionals . 187 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations ................................................... 189 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 189 

Increase in unit cost threshold for purchases using certain funds 

under the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (sec. 1201) ......... 189 

Authority to provide administrative services and support to coalition 

liaison officers of certain foreign nations assigned to Joint Forces 

Command (sec. 1202) ............................................................................. 189 

Modification of authorities relating to program to build the capacity 

of foreign military forces (sec. 1203) .................................................... 189 

Modification of notification and reporting requirements for use of 

authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism 

(sec. 1204) ............................................................................................... 190 

Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations 

(sec. 1205) ............................................................................................... 191 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XIV 

Title XII—Matters Relating to Foreign Nations—Continued 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training—Continued 

One-year extension and expansion of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (sec. 1206) ................................................................... 192 

One-year extension of authority for security and stabilization assistance (sec. 1207) ...................................................................................... 193 

Authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense personnel between 

the United States and foreign countries (sec. 1208) ........................... 193 

Defense cooperation between the United States and Iraq (sec. 1209) .. 194 

Report on alternatives to use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection and 

survivability (sec. 1210) ......................................................................... 194 

Subtitle B—Reports .......................................................................................... 194 

Report on United States engagement with Iran (sec. 1221) .................. 194 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 195 

Sense of Congress on establishment of measures of progress to evaluate United States strategic objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan 

(sec. 1231) ............................................................................................... 195 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 195 

China’s use of nonmilitary warfare concepts .......................................... 195 

Recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia ...................................... 195 

Title XIII—Cooperative Threat Reduction ............................................................ 197 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 197 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 197 

Authority to enter into agreements to receive contributions for Biological Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303) ..................................... 198 

Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds 

for bilateral and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament 

activities (sec. 1304) ............................................................................... 198 

Title XIV—Other Authorizations ........................................................................... 201 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 201 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 201 

Extension of previously authorized disposal of cobalt from National 

Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411) ................................................................ 201 

Authorization for actions to correct the industrial resource shortfall 

for high-purity beryllium metal in amounts not in excess of 

$80,000,000 (sec. 1412) .......................................................................... 201 

Subtitle C—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 201 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1421) ............................................................................................... 201 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 202 

T–AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship ......................................................... 202 

Defense Coalition Support Fund .............................................................. 202 

Defense Health Program Operations & Maintenance funding .............. 202 

Medical products sustainment ................................................................. 203 

Breast Cancer Center of Excellence ......................................................... 203 

Department of Defense Inspector General .............................................. 203 

Title XV—Overseas Contingency Operations ........................................................ 205 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 205 

Army procurement (sec. 1502) .................................................................. 205 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503) .................................. 205 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1504) ........................................................... 205 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1505) .................................... 205 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1506) ....................... 205 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1507) .................................................. 205 

Military personnel (sec. 1508) .................................................................. 205 

Working capital funds (sec. 1509) ............................................................ 205 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) ........................................................ 206 

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

1511) ....................................................................................................... 206 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1512) ..................................................... 206 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513) ............................... 206 

Funding tables (sec. 1514) ........................................................................ 206 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1515) ...................................................... 206 

Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security Forces 

Fund (sec. 1516) ..................................................................................... 206 

Availability of funds in Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (sec. 

1517) ....................................................................................................... 206 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XV 

Title XV—Overseas Contingency Operations—Continued 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 207 

Single channel ground to air radio systems family ................................ 207 

Force XXI battle command brigade and below ....................................... 207 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 207 

MQ–9 Reaper modifications ..................................................................... 209 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program ......................................... 209 

Human terrain teams ............................................................................... 209 

Information Dominance Center ................................................................ 209 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund .......................................................... 210 

Division B Military Construction Authorizations ................................................. 211 

Summary .................................................................................................... 211 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 211 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 211 

Effective date (sec. 2003) .......................................................................... 212 

Funding tables (sec. 2004) ........................................................................ 212 

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 213 

Summary .................................................................................................... 213 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 214 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 214 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 214 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 214 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 

2105) ....................................................................................................... 214 

Item of Special Interest .................................................................................... 215 

Cooperative security location in Manta, Ecuador ................................... 215 

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 217 

Summary .................................................................................................... 217 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 217 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 217 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 217 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 218 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal 

year 2006 projects (sec. 2205) ............................................................... 218 

Budget Item ...................................................................................................... 218 

Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa ............................................. 218 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 219 

Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam ................. 219 

Secretary of the Navy report on an outlying landing field .................... 220 

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 223 

Summary .................................................................................................... 223 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 224 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 224 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 224 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 224 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec. 

2305) ....................................................................................................... 224 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 

2306) ....................................................................................................... 224 

Temporary prohibition on use of funds for military construction improvements, Palanquero Air Base, Colombia (sec. 2307) ................... 225 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 227 

Summary .................................................................................................... 227 

Subtitle A—Defense Agency Authorizations .................................................. 228 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 228 

Family housing (sec. 2402) ....................................................................... 228 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403) ................................................. 228 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2404) .............. 228 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 projects 

(sec. 2405) ............................................................................................... 228 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2009 projects 

(sec. 2406) ............................................................................................... 228 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec. 

2407) ....................................................................................................... 228 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XVI 

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies—Continued 

Subtitle B—Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations ................................ 229 

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization construction, Defense-wide (sec. 2411) ............................................................... 229 

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 231 

Summary .................................................................................................... 231 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 231 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 231 

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 233 

Summary .................................................................................................... 233 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 233 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 233 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 233 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 233 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 233 

Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) .......... 234 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 projects (sec. 

2607) ....................................................................................................... 234 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 

2608) ....................................................................................................... 234 

Title XXVII—Base Closure and Realignment Activities ...................................... 235 

Summary .................................................................................................... 235 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701) ........................................................................... 235 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through 

Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702) .......... 235 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703) ........................................................................... 235 

Report on global defense posture realignment and interagency review 

(sec. 2704) ............................................................................................... 236 

Sense of the Senate on need for community assistance related to 

base closures and realignments and force repositioning (sec. 2705) . 236 

Relocation of certain Army Reserve units in Connecticut (sec. 2706) .. 237 

Title XXVIII—Military Construction General Provisions .................................... 239 

Military construction and land acquisition projects authorized by 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec. 2801) ......... 239 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 239 

Extension of authority to use operation and maintenance funds for 

construction projects inside the United States Central Command 

and United States Africa Command areas of responsibility (sec. 

2811) ....................................................................................................... 239 

Modification of authority for scope of work variations (sec. 2812) ........ 239 

Modification of conveyance authority at military installations (sec. 

2813) ....................................................................................................... 239 

Two-year extension of authority for pilot projects for acquisition or 

construction of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2814) ............. 240 

Subtitle B—Energy Security ........................................................................... 240 

Report on Department of Defense efforts toward installation of solar 

panels and other renewable energy projects on military installations (sec. 2821) ...................................................................................... 240 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 240 

Land conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia (sec. 2831) ....... 240 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 240 

Incrementally funded programs ............................................................... 240 

Report on long-term strategy to accommodate force structure initiative implementation at military installations ..................................... 241 

Title XXIX—Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction Authorizations .................................................................................................................. 243 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XVII 

Title XXIX—Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction Authorizations—Continued 

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

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 243 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 243 

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 245 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 245 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 245 

Overview .................................................................................................... 245 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 246 

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 246 

Directed stockpile work ..................................................................... 246 

Campaigns .......................................................................................... 246 

Readiness in the technical base ........................................................ 247 

Secure transportation asset ............................................................... 248 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response .................................... 248 

Safeguards and security .................................................................... 248 

Facilities and infrastructure ............................................................. 248 

Site stewardship ................................................................................. 248 

Support to intelligence ....................................................................... 248 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs ................................... 249 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development ........ 249 

Nonproliferation and international security .................................... 249 

Fissile materials disposition .............................................................. 250 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................... 251 

International nuclear fuel bank ........................................................ 251 

Naval reactors .................................................................................... 251 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 251 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 251 

Waste Treatment Plant ............................................................................ 252 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 252 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) ............................................. 253 

Funding table (sec. 3105) .......................................................................... 253 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 253 

Nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec. 3111) .............. 253 

Elimination of nuclear weapons life extension program from exception to requirement to request funds in budget of the President 

(sec. 3112) ............................................................................................... 254 

Repeal of reliable replacement warhead program (sec. 3113) ............... 254 

Authorization of use of International Nuclear Materials Protection 

and Cooperation program funds for bilateral and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 3114) .......................... 254 

Repeal of prohibition on funding activities associated with international cooperative stockpile stewardship (sec. 3115) ...................... 254 

Modification of minor construction threshold for plant projects (sec. 

3116) ....................................................................................................... 254 

Two-year extension of authority for appointment of certain scientific, 

engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 3117) ................................ 255 

Repeal of sunset date for consolidation of counterintelligence programs of Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 

Administration (sec. 3118) .................................................................... 255 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 255 

Ten-year plan for utilization and funding of certain Department of 

Energy facilities (sec. 3131) .................................................................. 255 

Review of management and operation of certain national laboratories 

(sec. 3132) ............................................................................................... 255 

Inclusion in 2010 stockpile stewardship plan of certain information 

relating to stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 3133) ......................... 256 

Comptroller General of the United States review of projects carried 

out by the Office of Environmental Management of the Department 

of Energy pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (sec. 3134) ........................................................................... 256 

Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain Department 

of Energy pension obligations (sec. 3135) ............................................ 257 

Item of Special Interest ............................................................................ 257 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
Page

XVIII 

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued 

Subtitle C—Other Matters—Continued 

W–76 ........................................................................................................... 257 

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 259 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 259 

Title XXXIII—Maritime Administration ................................................................ 261 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3301) ....................................................... 261 

Division D—Funding Tables ................................................................................... 263 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 263 

Item of Special Interest ............................................................................ 263 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate ........ 263 

Title XLI—Procurement .......................................................................................... 265 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 265 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 265 

Title XLII—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ................................. 267 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 267 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations(sec. 4202) ............................................................................. 267 

Title XLIII—Operation and Maintenance ............................................................. 269 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 269 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 269 

Title XLIV—Other Authorizations ......................................................................... 271 

Other authorizations (sec. 4401) .............................................................. 271 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) . 271 

Title XLV—Military Construction .......................................................................... 273 

Military construction (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 273 

2005 base realignment and closure round FY 2010 project listing 

(sec. 4502) ............................................................................................... 273 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act military construction (sec. 

4503) ....................................................................................................... 273 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4504) . 274 

Title XLVI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 275 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec.4601) .............. 275 

Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................ 275 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 275 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 275 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 276 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 277 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 277 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate ........ 278 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 325 

Additional views of Mr. Chambliss .......................................................... 236 

Additional views of Mr. Thune ................................................................. 326 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 111–35 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 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 

JULY 2, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed 

Services,submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1390] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2010 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, 

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 2010; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2010; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2010; 

(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 2010; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

Committee overview 

The United States Armed Forces have been involved in armed 

conflict for more than 7 years—71⁄2 years in Afghanistan and 6 

years in Iraq. Whether engaged in combat in Afghanistan or Iraq, 

delivering humanitarian assistance to victims of disasters, training 

foreign national forces to combat terrorism in their own countries, 

or assisting State and federal agencies responding to emergencies 

here at home, the men and women of our armed forces, both active 

and reserve, are serving honorably and courageously to promote 

and defend our Nation’s interests. They do so often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their families. 

After more than 7 years of war, our military, particularly our 

ground forces, is severely stressed and the readiness of the military 

services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions is low. 

The administration has revised the overall strategy for the war 

in Afghanistan to encompass a more regional approach, including 

in particular a greater emphasis on Pakistan. Additional U.S. 

forces are being deployed to Afghanistan and a new American general has taken over as the U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Commander, with the promise of a change in operational 

strategy and tactics for conducting the war. 

Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense announced, and the President approved, a series of decisions relating to the budget for Fiscal 

Year 2010 that are based upon an increased emphasis on irregular 

war, implementing lessons learned in Iraq, terminating troubled 

acquisition programs, and delaying programs for which requirements are not yet defined. 

To date in this First Session of the 111th Congress, the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services has conducted 35 hearings and numerous briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2010 and related defense matters, as well as six nomination hearings. The committee’s early focus on acquisition reform resulted in 

the enactment into law of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23). 

In order to provide a framework for the consideration of these 

matters, the committee identified seven guidelines to guide its 

work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010. These guidelines are: 

1. Provide fair compensation and first rate health care, address the needs of the wounded, ill and injured, and improve 

the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer 

force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their 

families. 

2. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, 

training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) 

and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability 

operations. 

3. Enhance the capability of the armed forces to conduct 

counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to 

Afghanistan, as appropriate. 

4. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 

5. Seek to reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action 

aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

military services to conduct the full range of their assigned 

missions. 

6. Terminate troubled programs and activities, improve efficiencies, and apply the savings to higher-priority programs. 

7. Ensure aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of 

taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 

Explanation of funding summary 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2010 was $680.2 billion. Of this 

amount $550.2 billion was for the so-called ‘‘base’’ budget of which 

$533.8 billion was for the Department of Defense and $16.4 billion 

was for the Department of Energy. The discretionary budget request included $130.0 billion for overseas contingency operations. 

In total, the bill authorizes $679.8 billion, which is slightly below 

the request. The bill authorizes $551.1 billion for the base budget 

and $129.3 billion for overseas contingency operations. The bill also 

includes a general reduction of $500.0 million in Division A and Division B authorizations for management efficiencies. 

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 new mandatory proposal dealing with concurrent receipt. When these programs are added to the administration’s budget the total request for national defense equals $693.1 

billion as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The bill 

is consistent with this level with the exception that it does not include the concurrent receipt proposal as the proposed offsets were 

not within the jurisdiction of the committee. 

The following two tables summarize the direct authorizations 

and the equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2010 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. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(5) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

Department of Defense Authorizations—Base Bill 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorization 

Title I—PROCUREMENT 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ......................................................... 5,315,991 –171,100 5,144,891 

Missile Procurement, Army .......................................................... 1,370,109 5,000 1,375,109 

Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .............................. 2,451,952 2,451,952 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army .............................................. 2,051,895 8,000 2,059,895 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................. 9,907,151 –289,160 9,617,991 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .......................... 564,850 –564,850 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy .......................................................... 18,378,312 277,100 18,655,412 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ....................................................... 3,453,455 62,000 3,515,455 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps ................... 840,675 840,675 

Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy ................................................ 13,776,867 13,776,867 

Other Procurement, Navy ............................................................. 5,661,176 –66,000 5,595,176 

Procurement, Marine Corps ......................................................... 1,600,638 1,600,638 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ................................................... 11,966,276 1,111,600 13,077,876 

Missile Procurement, Air Force .................................................... 6,300,728 –193,000 6,107,728 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ....................................... 822,462 822,462 

Other Procurement, Air Force ...................................................... 17,293,141 –47,800 17,245,341 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 3,984,352 65,700 4,050,052 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Veh Fund ............................. 1,200,000 1,200,000 

Rapid Acquisition Fund ............................................................... 79,300 79,300 

Defense Production Act Purchases1 ............................................ [38,246] 

Subtotal, PROCUREMENT ............................................................ 105,819,330 1,397,490 107,216,820 

Title II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION 

RDT&E, Army ................................................................................ 10,438,218 424,785 10,863,003 

RDT&E, Navy ................................................................................ 19,270,932 326,764 19,597,696 

RDT&E, Air Force ......................................................................... 27,992,827 701,125 28,693,952 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide .................................................................. 20,741,542 –186,272 20,555,270 

Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense ..................................... 190,770 190,770 

Subtotal, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION ....... 78,634,289 1,266,402 79,900,691 

Title III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operation and Maintenance, Army .............................................. 31,274,882 –342,000 30,932,882 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy .............................................. 35,070,346 819,700 35,890,046 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 5,536,223 11,000 5,547,223 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ........................................ 34,748,159 –694,600 34,053,559 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide ................................ 28,357,246 –711,249 27,645,997 

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve ................................ 2,620,196 3,600 2,623,796 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................ 1,278,501 1,278,501 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ................... 228,925 228,925 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve .......................... 3,079,228 3,079,228 

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard .................... 6,257,034 3,600 6,260,634 

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ........................ 5,885,761 2,700 5,888,461 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
7 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense .................. 13,932 13,932 

Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund ..................... 100,000 100,000 

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid ........................ 109,869 109,869 

Cooperative Threat Reduction ..................................................... 404,093 20,000 424,093 

Environmental Restoration, Army ................................................ 415,864 415,864 

Environmental Restoration, Navy ................................................ 285,869 285,869 

Environmental Restoration, Air Force .......................................... 494,276 494,276 

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide .................................. 11,100 11,100 

Environmental Restoration Formerly Used Sites ......................... 267,700 267,700 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ....................... 5,000 5,000 

Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................. 156,444,204 –887,249 155,556,955 

Title IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................. 136,016,281 –400,000 135,616,281 

Title XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Defense Working Capital Funds .................................................. 141,388 141,388 

Defense Commissary Agency ....................................................... 1,313,616 1,313,616 

National Defense Sealift Fund .................................................... 1,642,758 –400,000 1,242,758 

Defense Coalition Support Fund .................................................. 22,000 –22,000 

Defense Health Program .............................................................. 27,903,163 10,700 27,913,863 

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense .................. 1,560,760 1,560,760 

Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................ 1,058,984 18,800 1,077,784 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................... 272,444 16,000 288,444 

Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................. 33,915,113 –376,500 33,538,613 

Division B: Military Construction Authorization 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military Construction, Army ......................................................... 3,660,779 –194,633 3,466,146 

Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ........................... 3,763,264 –224,493 3,538,771 

Military Construction, Air Force ................................................... 1,145,434 32,350 1,177,784 

Military Construction, Defense-Wide ........................................... 3,097,526 –241,399 2,856,127 

Chemical Demilitarization Construction ...................................... 146,541 5,000 151,541 

NATO Security Investment Program ............................................. 276,314 276,314 

Military Construction, Army National Guard ............................... 426,491 55,282 481,773 

Military Construction, Army Reserve ........................................... 374,862 3,850 378,712 

Military Construction, Naval Reserve .......................................... 64,124 64,124 

Military Construction, Air National Guard ................................... 128,261 173,100 301,361 

Military Construction, Air Force Reserve ..................................... 27,476 18,100 45,576 

Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 13,111,072 –372,843 12,738,229 

FAMILY HOUSING 

Family Housing Construction, Army ............................................ 273,236 273,236 

Family Housing O&M, Army ......................................................... 523,418 523,418 

Family Housing Construction, Navy & Marine Corps .................. 146,569 146,569 

Family Housing O&M, Navy & Marine Corps .............................. 368,540 368,540 

Family Housing Construction, Air Force ...................................... 66,101 66,101 

Family Housing O&M, Air Force ................................................... 502,936 502,936 

Family Housing Construction, Defense-Wide ............................... 2,859 2,859 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
8 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

Family Housing O&M, Defense-Wide ........................................... 49,214 49,214 

Homeowners Assistance Fund ..................................................... 23,225 350,000 373,225 

DoD Family Housing Improvement Fund ..................................... 2,600 2,600 

Subtotal, FAMILY HOUSING ......................................................... 1,958,698 350,000 2,308,698 

BRAC 

Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 ........................... 396,768 396,768 

Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 ........................... 7,479,498 7,479,498 

Subtotal, BRAC ............................................................................ 7,876,266 7,876,266 

Prior Year Savings ....................................................................... –112,500 –112,500 

Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING & BRAC 22,946,036 –135,343 22,810,693 

General Transfer Authority (non-add) ......................................... [5,000,000] [–1,000,000] [4,000,000] 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) ............................. 533,775,253 864,800 534,640,053 

Division C: Department of Energy Authorization 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................... 6,188 –6,188 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Weapons Activities ....................................................................... 6,384,431 106,188 6,490,619 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ................................................ 2,136,709 2,136,709 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................ 1,003,133 1,003,133 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................... 420,754 420,754 

Subtotal NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ........ 9,945,027 106,188 10,051,215 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................. 5,495,831 –100,000 5,395,831 

Other Defense Activities .............................................................. 852,468 852,468 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ................................................. 98,400 98,400 

Subtotal ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .... 6,446,699 –100,000 6,346,699 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ............................................... 16,397,914 16,397,914 

Independent Federal Agency Authorization 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ..................................... 26,086 26,086 

Subtotal, DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ......... 26,086 26,086 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) .......... 16,424,000 16,424,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)—BASE BILL .......................... 550,199,253 864,800 551,064,053 

Department of Defense Authorizations—Overseas Contingency Operations 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
9 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

Division A: Department of Defense Authorization 

Title XV—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OCO) 

PROCUREMENT 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ......................................................... 1,636,229 1,636,229 

Missile Procurement, Army .......................................................... 531,570 531,570 

Procurement of WTCV, Army ........................................................ 759,466 759,466 

Procurement of Ammunition, Army .............................................. 370,635 370,635 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................. 6,225,966 104,000 6,329,966 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .......................... 1,535,000 564,850 2,099,850 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy .......................................................... 916,553 916,553 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ....................................................... 73,700 73,700 

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and MC ................................ 710,780 710,780 

Other Procurement, Navy ............................................................. 318,018 318,018 

Procurement, Marine Corps ......................................................... 1,164,445 1,164,445 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ................................................... 936,441 –40,000 896,441 

Missile Procurement, AF .............................................................. 36,625 36,625 

Procurement of Ammunition, AF .................................................. 256,819 256,819 

Other Procurement, Air Force ...................................................... 2,321,549 2,321,549 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 491,430 491,430 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund ........................ 5,456,000 5,456,000 

Subtotal, PROCUREMENT, OCO ................................................... 23,741,226 628,850 24,370,076 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION .......................

RDT&E, Army ................................................................................ 57,962 57,962 

RDT&E, Navy ................................................................................ 107,180 107,180 

RDT&E, Air Force ......................................................................... 29,286 29,286 

RDT&E, Defense-Wide .................................................................. 115,826 115,826 

Subtotal, RDT&E, OCO ................................................................. 310,254 310,254 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operation & Maintenance, Army ................................................. 52,170,661 –100,000 52,070,661 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy .................................................. 6,219,583 –568,850 5,650,733 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps .................................... 3,701,600 3,701,600 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ........................................... 10,026,868 10,026,868 

Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide .................................... 7,578,300 7,578,300 

Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................... 204,326 204,326 

Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve .................................... 68,059 68,059 

Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ...................... 86,667 86,667 

Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................. 125,925 125,925 

Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ........................ 321,646 321,646 

Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ........................... 289,862 289,862 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund ............................................... 7,462,769 7,462,769 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund ............................. 700,000 –700,000 

Iraq Freedom Fund ...................................................................... 115,300 115,300 

Subtotal, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OCO ......................... 89,071,566 –1,368,850 87,702,716 

MILITARY PERSONNEL, OCO ........................................................ 13,586,341 13,586,341 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
10 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

Defense Working Capital Funds .................................................. 396,915 396,915 

Defense Health Program .............................................................. 1,155,235 1,155,235 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ............ 324,603 324,603 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................... 8,876 8,876 

Subtotal, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, OCO .................................... 1,885,629 1,885,629 

Special Transfer Authority (non-add) .......................................... [4,000,000] [500,000] [4,500,000] 

Division B: Military Construction Authorization 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military Construction, Army ......................................................... 923,884 6,600 930,484 

Military Construction, Air Force ................................................... 474,500 474,500 

Military Construction, Defense-Wide ........................................... 6,600 –6,600 

Subtotal, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, OCO .................................. 1,404,984 1,404,984 

TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS .......................... 130,000,000 –740,000 129,260,000 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE .............................................. 663,775,253 124,800 663,900,053 

Reduction in Authorizations for Management Efficiencies 

(Divisions A and B) ................................................................ –500,000 –500,000 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE ............................................. 680,199,253 –375,200 679,824,053 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

Title IV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) ......... 134,000 134,000 

1 Defense Production Act Purchases are not in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee (see Budget Implication). 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
11 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051) .............................. 533,775,253 864,800 534,640,053 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053) ........... 16,424,000 16,424,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)—BASE BILL ........................... 550,199,253 864,800 551,064,053 

TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ........................... 130,000,000 ¥740,000 129,260,000 

Reduction in Authorizations for Management Efficiencies (Divisions A and B) ........................................................................ ¥500,000 ¥500,000 

GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 680,199,253 Ø375,200 679,824,053 

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 .............................................. 38,246 38,246 

National Science Center, Army .................................................... 25 25 

Disposal Of DOD Real Property ................................................... 10,393 10,393 

Lease Of DOD Real Property ........................................................ 8,856 8,856 

DOD Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery .................. 1,227 1,227 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (051) ........................................ 58,747 58,747 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ....................... 134,000 134,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (053) ........................................ 134,000 134,000 

Other Discretionary Programs ...................................................... 6,751,000 6,751,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (054) ........................................ 6,751,000 6,751,000 

Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050) 6,943,747 6,943,747 

OCO National Defense Discretionary Programs that are not in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services 

Committee 

FBI Salaries and Expenses .......................................................... 101,066 101,066 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (054) 101,066 101,066 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ..................................... 663,834,000 ¥375,200 663,458,800 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) ...................................... 16,558,000 16,558,000 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ................................................. 6,852,066 6,852,066 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary 687,244,066 Ø375,200 686,868,866 

National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Estimates) 

Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement 

Fund ........................................................................................ 4,376,000 4,376,000 

Concurrent receipt policy proposal .............................................. 330,000 ¥330,000 

Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory ................................ 1,240,000 1,240,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (051) ........................................ 4,205,000 Ø330,000 3,875,000 

Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs 

and other ................................................................................. 1,377,000 1,377,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (053) ........................................ 1,377,000 1,377,000 

Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ............................. 32,000 32,000 

Payment to CIA retirement fund and other ................................ 291,000 291,000 

Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function (054) ........................................ 323,000 323,000 

Total National Defense Mandatory (050) 5,905,000 Ø330,000 5,575,000 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
12 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Authorization 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorization 

Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory 

Department of Defense—Military (051) ..................................... 668,039,000 ¥705,200 667,333,800 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) ...................................... 17,935,000 17,935,000 

Defense-Related Activities (054) ................................................. 7,175,066 7,175,066 

Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and 

Mandatory 693,149,066 Ø705,200 692,443,866 

Subtitle B—Navy Programs 

Treatment of Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department to manage and report on the Littoral Combat Ship 

(LCS) program as a major defense acquisition program (MDAP). 

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–23) emphasizes the need to start acquisition programs on 

sure footing as a central mechanism by which the Department of 

Defense (DOD) can get control of cost growth and schedule slippage 

on MDAP programs. The cost and schedule reporting requirements 

in chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, play a key role in 

ensuring that the Department and Congress are aware of emerging 

problems in such programs. 

The Navy was able to avoid this oversight in the case of the LCS 

program by claiming that the program was just to build a handful 

of ships to test their capabilities and then see what the Navy wanted to build later. From the outset of the LCS program, however, 

program proponents within the Navy, including all three Chiefs of 

Naval Operations in office during the development of the LCS program, have invariably called this a 55–ship program. Some officials 

have even suggested that it might grow to be larger than that. The 

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 amended section 

2430 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the Department 

include future program spirals in assessing whether a program 

should fall within the definition of a MDAP. That modification 

alone should cause DOD to define LCS as a MDAP, but the committee recommends this provision to remove any discretion in 

treating this program. 

Had the Navy leadership been operating within the spirit of the 

title 10, United States Code, provisions regarding MDAPS, LCS 

would have fallen under the management and reporting requirements required for MDAPs. 

No one can say that MDAP oversight would have prevented the 

problems of poor requirements generation, poor requirements control, poor program oversight, insufficient supervision of program 

execution, and abysmal cost estimating. However, when a program 

is expected to cost roughly $12.0 billion (even under the rosiest cost 

scenario), it should be subject to the requirements development, 

cost estimating, acquisition planning, and other requirements esVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
13 

tablished in statute and regulation for the beginning of MDAP programs. Otherwise, we will have little chance of fixing such programs after they fall into trouble, and DOD will never be able to 

get control of its acquisition problems. 

Report on strategic plan for homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to report on the Navy’s strategic plan for 

homeporting the Littoral Combat Ship on the east coast and west 

coast of the United States. 

Procurement programs for future naval surface combatants 

(sec. 113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 

Navy from obligating any funds for building surface combatants 

after 2011 until the Navy conducts particular analyses, and completes certain tasks that should be required at the beginning of 

major defense acquisition programs (MDAP). 

For at least the past couple of years, the Navy’s strategy for modernizing the major surface combatants in the fleet has been in upheaval. The Navy was adamant that the next generation cruiser 

had to begin construction in the 2011–2012 timeframe. After 15 

years of consistent, unequivocal support of the uniformed Navy for 

the fire support requirement, and for the DDG–1000 destroyer that 

was intended to meet that requirement (i.e., gun fire support for 

Marine Corps or Army forces ashore), the Navy leadership, in the 

middle of last year, decided that they should truncate the DDG– 

1000 destroyer program and buy DDG–51 destroyers instead. 

The Defense Department has announced that the Navy will complete construction of the three DDG–1000 vessels and will build 

three DDG–51 destroyers, one in fiscal year 2010 and two in fiscal 

year 2011. Beyond that, the plan is less well defined, and includes 

building only a notional ‘‘future surface combatant,’’ with requirements, capabilities, and costs to be determined. 

Notwithstanding Navy protests to the contrary, this was mainly 

due to the Navy’s affordability concerns. The committee notes with 

no little irony that this sudden change of heart on the DDG–1000 

program is at odds with its own consistent testimony that ‘‘stability’’ in the shipbuilding programs is fundamental to controlling 

costs and protecting the industrial base. 

The Navy claims the change of heart on the DDG–1000 program 

was related to an emerging need for additional missile defense capability that would be provided by DDG–51s and is being requested 

by the combatant commanders, and would be used to protect carrier battle groups against new threats. 

The committee certainly believes that the services should have 

the ability to change course as the long-term situation dictates. 

However, since we are talking about the long-term and hundreds 

of billions of dollars of development and production costs for 

MDAPs, the committee believes that the Defense Department 

should exercise greater rigor in making sure such course corrections are made with full understanding of the alternatives and the 

implications of such decisions, rather than relying on inputs from 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
14 

a handful of individuals. The committee has only to look at the decision-making behind the major course correction in Navy shipbuilding that yielded the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to be concerned by that prospect. 

Before deciding on a course of action regarding acquisition of surface combatants after 2011, we collectively have time to perform 

the due diligence that should be and must be performed at the beginning of any MDAP. That is what this section will ensure. 

In addition, in order to deter any delaying action on conducting 

and completing the activities required by this section before 2011, 

the committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy obligate no 

more than 50 percent of the funds authorized for fiscal year 2010 

in PE 24201N, CG(X), until the Navy submits a plan for implementing the requirements of this section to the congressional defense committees. 

Report on a service life extension program for Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates (sec. 114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to report on a potential service life extension 

program (SLEP) for the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, to include: (1) costs and schedules for a program, and shipyards capable 

of conducting such a program; (2) a detailed plan for achieving a 

313-ship fleet; (3) the strategic plan for the Littoral Combat Ship 

(LCS) to fulfill roles and missions currently performed by Oliver 

Hazard Perry-class frigates; (4) the strategic plan for LCS if a 

SLEP were performed on Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates; and 

(5) a description of the manner in which the Navy has been meeting the needs of United States Southern Command during the past 

5 years. 

Subtitle C—Air Force Matters 

Limitation on retirement of C–5 aircraft (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 

Air Force from retiring any C–5 aircraft until certain conditions are 

met. These include: (1) completing operational testing of the C–5 

Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program; (2) providing a 

report by the Director of Operational Testing on the results of that 

operational testing; and (3) delivering reports on the economic and 

risk analyses that led to any decision to retire the aircraft before 

the end of their useful service lives. 

Revised availability of certain funds available for the F–22A 

fighter aircraft (sec. 122) 

In section 134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), Congress authorized $523.0 

million in funds for F–22A advance procurement, but prohibited obligation of more than $140.0 million of that amount until the President certified to the congressional defense committees that: (1) the 

procurement of F–22A fighter aircraft is in the national interest of 

the United States; or (2) the termination of the production line for 

F–22A fighter aircraft is in the national interest of the United 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
15 

States. The certification was required to be submitted before March 

1, 2009. 

The President made no such certification. The Department has 

determined that, since the President did not make a determination 

under section 134 of Public Law 110–417, the remaining $383.0 

million is unavailable for obligation. 

The President’s budget request includes a proposal to terminate 

production for the F–22A and includes no funds for additional F– 

22A aircraft. The budget request also includes a request for $95.2 

million to fund various activities related to the F–22A production 

line, and $350.7 million to purchase and install various modifications for the F–22A fleet. 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) repeal 

section 134 of Public Law 110–417 to lower the fence around the 

$383.0 million that might have been used for advance procurement; 

and (2) allow the Secretary of the Air Force to reallocate those 

funds for other priorities. Lowering that fence would allow the Secretary to use these fiscal year 2009 funds to pay for fiscal year 

2010 F–22A funding needs. The committee believes that, subsequent to action on the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 

(Public Law 111–32) the Air Force should have $383.0 million 

available for such purposes. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $383.0 million to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, with $350.7 million of that 

amount applied to the F–22A modifications request, and $32.3 million applied to the full funding line. 

Report on potential foreign military sales of the F–22A fighter aircraft (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, 

and in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to report 

on: (1) the costs of developing an exportable version of the F–22A; 

(2) an assessment of whether such development is technically feasible, and if so, how long it would take; (3) an assessment of the 

strategic implications of permitting foreign sales of the F–22A; (4) 

an assessment of the potential impact of foreign sales on the domestic aerospace industry; and (5) any changes in law that would 

be required to permit such sales. 

Next generation bomber aircraft (sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a series 

of findings with respect to the next-generation bomber and that 

would declare that it is the policy of the United States to support 

a development program for next-generation bomber technologies. 

On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates announced that the United 

States ‘‘will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air 

Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the 

requirement, and technology.’’ Subsequent to this announcement, 

commanders of the United States Strategic Command, the United 

States Pacific Command, and the United States Joint Forces Command all testified before the committee that the capability that a 

next-generation bomber would provide will be needed in the future. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
16 

The committee understands that discussion on a next-generation 

bomber will occur in the context of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review, which will inform the fiscal 

year 2011 budget deliberations. 

Subtitle D—Joint and Multiservice Matters 

Modification of nature of data link utilizable by tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (sec. 131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 141 of The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163), which mandates that all Department 

of Defense (DOD) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) utilize data 

links from the Common Data Link family. The recommended provision would establish Internet Protocol-capable communications relays as an additional standard for DOD UAVs. 

The committee believes this change is necessary because new requirements exist for communications relays that are Internet Protocol-capable and that support mobile ad hoc networking, range extension, and point to multi-point networking, as well as interoperability between Joint Tactical Radio System air- and surface-domain waveforms, which are capabilities not previously available 

with the Common Data Link. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Extended range multi-purpose Sky Warrior 

The budget request included $651.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), to procure 36 MQ–1C extended range multipurpose (ERMP) Sky Warrior unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in 

the Overseas Contingency Operations account and the base budget 

request. The Government Accountability Office reports, as is confirmed in the APA budget exhibits, that only 24 of these 36 aircraft 

will be delivered over a single year period, and that, therefore, the 

budget request reflects substantial forward funding. The committee 

strongly supports the ERMP program, but agrees that the Army 

should budget only for a single year’s worth of aircraft production 

and deliveries. The committee recommends a reduction to the request of 12 ERMP aircraft and $200.0 million. 

CH–47 multiyear procurement execution 

The budget request included $1,001.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for the purchase of CH–47 Chinook cargo helicopters. The Army informed the committee that funds requested 

are insufficient to support the multiyear procurement contract. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $22.0 million in APA, line 22 

for the modification of CH–47 Chinook helicopters and an increase 

of $22.0 million in APA, line 13 to support CH–47 Chinook 

multiyear procurement. 

Apache AH–64 fuselage manufacturing 

The budget request included $426.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for Apache AH–64 helicopter modifications. The 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
17 

committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in APA to procure one set of the special tooling required to qualify a domestic 

source for the manufacture of the Apache AH–64 fuselage. 

Blackhawk UH–60A conversion to UH–60L 

The budget request included $66.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for utility helicopter modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $20.4 million in APA to accelerate the conversion of older UH–60A model aircraft to the newer, 

more capable UH–60L model. 

Air warrior ensemble generation III 

The budget request included $52.7 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for aircrew integrated systems. The committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million in APA for air warrior ensemble generation III systems. 

Patriot command and control modifications 

The budget request included $44.8 million in Missile Procurement, Army, for modification of Patriot missile systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to modify the Patriot Tactical Command System/Battery Command Post to meet the 

threshold requirements of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 system. This upgrade will help improve the Patriot system capability 

until the follow-on Medium Extended Air Defense System is fielded. 

60mm mortars Army 

The budget request included $21.6 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for 60mm mortars, all types. The committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PAA for the procurement of additional mortars. 

Bomb line modernization 

The budget request included $151.9 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial facilities, 

but provided no funds for bomb line modernization at the 

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PAA for bomb line modernization. 

Mine protection vehicle family 

The budget request includes $134.7 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for 93 medium mine protected vehicles 

(MMPV). The committee notes that mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) category 2 (Cat II) vehicles, of which the Army currently has approximately 2,000 in its inventory, and which have 

not yet been incorporated into Army doctrine, organization, or materiel, meet the Army’s requirement for a medium mine protected 

vehicle. The committee is aware that, instead of deploying with vehicles organic to their formations, engineer and explosive ordnance 

disposal (EOD) units receive Cat II vehicles in theater. Therefore, 

the committee believes that procuring 93 more of an eventual 443 

new Cat II MRAP vehicles which would principally be used for 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
18 

training, is imprudent, especially in light of the draw-down in 

forces from Iraq and the future availability of excess MRAP vehicles. 

In the interim, the committee recommends a decrease of $90.0 

million in OPA to slow the production of these vehicles in fiscal 

year 2010 so that the Army may perform an assessment of its requirement and current inventory. 

Joint tactical radio system 

The budget request includes $55.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for the procurement of engineering design model fourchannel joint tactical radio system ground mobile radios for use in 

a multi-service operational test and evaluation. The committee understands that these tests will not occur until fiscal year 2011 due 

to ongoing technical complexities in the program’s testing schedule 

and a recent shift in the program’s milestone C decision. The committee also understands that both the Department’s Defense Contract Management Agency and its cost analysis improvement group 

have conducted assessments indicating the schedule may slip further. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease in OPA of 

$55.2 million due to program delays. 

Night vision devices 

The budget request includes $250.6 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the procurement of enhanced night vision 

goggles (ENVG). The committee strongly supports the Army’s ongoing efforts to equip soldiers with the most advanced night vision 

devices available and the ongoing work at the Army’s night vision 

lab to maintain and extend the U.S. military’s strategic advantage 

in this technology area. ENVGs permit superior tactical mobility 

and engagement during limited visibility conditions and enable soldiers to see, understand, and act first on the battlefield. This advantage is critical to current and future operations. 

The committee understands that the ENVG production line is 

significantly behind on its production schedule and has a backlog 

of systems due to failures found during monthly quality control 

testing of ENVG systems. Additionally, the committee understands 

that the ENVG contractor has notified the Army of a reduction in 

their capacity in the second quarter of 2009. The committee is 

aware of the Army’s plan to award contracts to other suppliers in 

order to increase capacity; however, even with this mitigation strategy, the Army will not be able to execute all of the funding requested for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in OPA 

due to ENVG production delays. 

Fido explosives detector 

The budget request included $56.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection systems, but provided no funds for the Fido explosives detector. The Fido explosives 

detector is deployed and in use by units in Iraq to counter improvised explosive devices and land mines. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in OPA for additional Fido explosives detectors. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
19 

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program 

The budget request included $33.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for medical combat support equipment. The committee 

recommends an increase of $8.3 million in OPA to accelerate the 

upgrade of Army field medical equipment. 

Operator driving simulators 

The budget request included $261.3 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. Additional driving simulators would allow deploying soldiers to maximize their 

training time while providing a realistic experience without risk to 

personnel or equipment. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million in OPA for operator driving simulators. 

Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System 

The budget request included $261.3 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but provided no 

funding for the Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System (IGS–VTS). The IGS–VTS is a fully immersive, interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier vehicle training. The 

committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in OPA for the 

IGS–VTS. 

Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System 

The budget request included $3.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for the Call for Fire Trainer, but included no funds for 

the Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System (JFETS) project. JFETS 

is a next-generation, virtual reality call for fire training simulation. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for 

JFETS. 

Urban training center instrumentation 

The budget request included $261.3 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The committee 

notes that the Army’s readiness and rotation training strategies 

call for units to accomplish more of their mission training and rehearsals at their local training areas and facilities. The Army is 

using several technologies to increase the flexibility and value of 

local training ranges and facilities including the Deployable Range 

Package, the Homestation Instrumentation System, and the Integrated Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain Training System. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in OPA for 

the instrumentation of a regional urban operations training center. 

Virtual Interactive Combat Environment System 

The budget request included $261.3 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but included no 

funds for the Virtual Interactive Combat Environment (VICE) system. VICE is a team tactics, techniques, and procedures training 

system for dismounted infantry tasks. The committee recommends 

an increase of $4.9 million in OPA for VICE. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
20 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request includes $564.9 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), which funds the operations of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), including $203.1 million for JIEDDO’s attack the 

network line of operation; $199.1 million for JIEDDO’s defeat the 

device operation; $41.1 million for JIEDDO’s train the force operation; and $121.6 million for JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure line 

of operation. The committee recommends full funding for JIEDDO, 

but recommends transferring all of JIEDDF funds from title I to 

the same budget activities in title XV, which funds the overseas 

contingency operations of the Department. 

Navy 

F/A–18E/F 

The budget request included $1,009.5 million to purchase nine F/ 

A–18E/F aircraft. This is nine fewer aircraft than the Navy had 

planned to buy in fiscal year 2010 in the fiscal year 2009 futureyears defense program. 

The committee has expressed concern that the Navy is facing a 

sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A–18A–D Hornets retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F–35C) of the Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) is available. The committee raised this issue in the 

committee reports accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110–77) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and accompanying S. 3001 (S. Rept. 110–335) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The committee is disappointed 

that the Navy has failed to provide the report comparing single 

versus multiyear procurement costs mandated by the second of 

those committee reports. 

Last year, the committee received testimony from the Navy of a 

projected shortfall in Navy tactical aviation. The Navy indicated 

that, under assumptions current at that time, it would experience 

a shortfall of 69 tactical aircraft in the year 2017, a number that 

swells to 125 when requirements of the United States Marine 

Corps are included. The committee believes that the Navy’s projection of this shortfall was, however, based on a series of questionable assumptions. 

This year, the Chief of Naval Operations said that the projected 

gap may be as high as 250 aircraft total for the Department of the 

Navy. The committee believes that the Navy has failed to present 

a budget in fiscal year 2010 that takes effective action to deal with 

this substantially increased projected shortfall in the Department 

of the Navy’s tactical air fleet and is concerned about the potential 

risk such a shortfall could pose to national security. The committee 

also notes that this shortfall figure is still predicated on an initial 

operation capability of the F–35C in 2015 but that achieving this 

is considered optimistic by many observers. The Navy’s delay in 

taking action causes concern that it: (1) is continuing to accept the 

substantial security risks associated with the projected shortfall; 

(2) remains overly reliant on a potentially costly service life extenVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
21 

sion program (SLEP) for legacy F/A–18s as a means to mitigate the 

gap until the Joint Strike Fighter achieves full operational capability; and (3) is not adequately considering realistic, fiscally responsible long-range procurement plans to address the carrier 

strike aircraft shortfall, such as a multiyear procurement of F/A– 

18E/F aircraft as opposed to a series of single year purchases. 

The committee is concerned that, in response to possible further 

delays, expanding costs and technological immaturity with the JSF, 

the Navy appears increasingly reliant on its proposal to extend the 

life of select legacy F/A–18’s from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours 

through a SLEP currently estimated to cost on average $26.0 million per plane. This life extension would be in addition to the 

2,600-hour service life extension that the Navy already plans for 

most legacy F/A–18s. By the Navy’s own testimony, it is unclear 

how many of the planes are capable of reaching 10,000 flight hours 

even with a SLEP. The committee is concerned that the cost uncertainties of a SLEP achieving an additional 1,400 flight hours make 

such a plan risky. In any case, the committee believes such SLEP 

may be inefficient when compared with the benefits of procuring 

new F/A–18E/F’s, which might cost less than $50.0 million each in 

2009 constant dollars under a multiyear procurement acquisition 

strategy. Normalizing costs for the expected return in additional 

service life, a SLEP to achieve the additional 1,400 hours would 

cost approximately $18,571 per flight hour gained, versus $8,333 

per flight hour provided by a new F/A–18E/F (at a 6,000 flight hour 

life, the cost per flight hour of a new F/A–18E/F would fall even 

further to $5,814 if those planes are similarly extended to 8,600 

flight hours as have legacy F/A–18s). In light of such costs, the 

committee believes the Navy must more carefully evaluate costs 

and benefits of new F/A–18E/F procurements, compared to investing in a SLEP of legacy aircraft. 

The committee further notes that new F/A–18E/F models come 

equipped with improved technological capabilities over the legacy 

F/A–18’s, including active electronically scanned array radar, modernized avionics, advanced aerial refueling system capability, and 

added weapon hard points, among other features that would not be 

part of a SLEP upgrade package for the older aircraft. These factors would tend to increase the benefit of purchasing new F/A–18E/ 

Fs compared to conducting a SLEP on legacy aircraft. The Navy 

projects that the F/A–18E/F will remain in the fleet until at least 

2040, and should be able to use most or all of the full service life 

of any newly purchased aircraft. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense intends to review the whole issue of tactical aircraft forces in the 

pending Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee expects the 

Department to conduct and submit the analysis of multiyear procurement for the F/A–18 as directed in the committee report last 

year to include cost differentials between single year and multiyear 

procurement strategies and tradeoffs between a SLEP and new 

procurements of the F/A–18E/F. The Department should include 

such information derived from that analysis in deciding how to implement the results on the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review 

regarding tactical aviation. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
22 

The committee expects that the Department’s tactical aviation 

procurement strategies will be informed by the Quadrennial Defense Review. In light of the significant increase in the strike-fighter shortfall testified to before the committee this year, additional 

actions to address that shortfall cannot be delayed too long. The 

committee emphasizes, as it did last year, that if purchasing new 

F/A–18E/F aircraft proves to be the preferred method of resolving 

the shortfall, not acquiring those aircraft under a multiyear contract could lead to the loss of ‘‘substantial savings’’ to the government—subject to the outcome of required independent cost estimates. The committee notes that a request for a multiyear procurement must fully comply with the requirements of section 2306b of 

title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181). 

In the interim, the committee fails to see the wisdom in cutting 

planned F/A–18E/F procurement with potential shortfalls this 

large. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $560.0 

million to buy 18 F/A–18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2010 as originally planned. 

UH–1Y/AH–1Z 

The budget request included $835.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for the UH–1Y/AH–1Z helicopter program. 

These funds would support purchasing 16 new UH–1Ys, 2 new 

AH–1Zs, and remanufacturing 12 existing AH–1Ws to the AH–1Z 

configuration. This compares to the program for fiscal year 2009 of 

15 new UH–1Ys, and remanufacturing 5 existing AH–1Ws to the 

AH–1Z configuration. 

In conjunction with the plan to increase the size of the Marine 

Corps, the total program quantities have been increased to 123 

UH–1Ys and 226 AH–1Zs. A total of 58 of the programmed 226 

AH–1Zs will be new production to reduce the impact on operational 

forces of taking operational helicopters off the line and inducting 

them into the remanufacturing effort. Fiscal year 2010 would be 

the first year of buying new AH–1Zs. 

Operational testing for the UH–1Y has been completed, which resulted in a positive Milestone B decision in September 2008. Operational testing for the AH–1Z has been delayed, mainly due to 

issues surrounding the targeting sight system. The program office 

now predicts that operational testing for the AH–1Z configuration 

will not be completed until late in fiscal year 2010. Despite these 

delays, the fiscal year 2010 request reflects an increase of two AH– 

1Z aircraft since the plan last year. 

Also since last year, the Secretary of the Navy notified Congress 

that the Service Acquisition Executive had determined the program 

had breached the significant cost growth threshold of 15 percent, 

compared to the baseline average procurement unit cost. 

The committee supports the Marine Corps plans to expand the 

size of the force, but also believes that the Department should not 

proceed too quickly in ramping up this program absent successful 

operational testing. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
23 

The committee recommends a decrease of $282.9 million to keep 

the UH–1Y/AH–1Z program at the same level of effort as fiscal 

year 2009. 

Weapons industrial facilities 

The budget request included $3.2 million for various activities at 

government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program at the Allegany Ballistics 

Laboratory. 

Multiple User Objective System 

The committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million in 

Weapons Procurement, Navy, line 18 for the Multiple User Objective System (MUOS). A complete discussion of the MUOS program 

is contained in title II of this Act. 

Smart valves 

The budget request included $11.4 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), for firefighting equipment, but included no funding to 

expand the application of ‘‘smart valves’’ for firefighting systems to 

support the DDG–51 modernization program. 

The Navy developed smart valve technology as part of the DDG– 

1000 autonomic fire suppression system (AFSS). These systems 

support reducing crew sizes because they can automatically reconfigure a ship’s firefighting system to route around damaged sections of piping without human intervention. 

The current DDG–51 modernization program is upgrading various systems on the DDGs, including the hull, mechanical and electrical systems. If the Navy were to make appropriate engineering 

changes, this smart valve technology could be backfit to the DDG– 

51 during this modernization period, and provide the opportunity 

to reduce crew sizes. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in OPN for expanding the application of smart valve technology. 

TB–33 thinline towed array 

The budget request included $28.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), for purchasing various components of the thinline 

towed systems. Installing these arrays holds the promise of providing much better acoustics performance for our submarines. 

The committee understands that additional funding would permit the Navy to accelerate initial qualification testing, implement 

automated manufacturing processes, qualify commercial suppliers 

for critical components, and improve acceptance testing methods. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in OPN for the TB–33 thinline towed array. 

Man overboard indicators 

The budget request included $55.3 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), for command support equipment, but no funding to 

procure man overboard indicators (MOBI). 

The Navy has tested a one-per-person MOBI transmitter. Additionally, at least two expeditionary strike groups recommended the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
24 

Navy procure MOBI transmitters for each embarked sailor, marine, 

and airman. The committee understands that a large majority of 

ship commanding officers having MOBI systems installed have requested additional MOBI transmitters in order to protect all embarked personnel. In addition, the U.S. Navy Safety Center has 

recommended that each embarked sailor and marine be afforded 

MOBI protection. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

for the procurement of additional MOBI systems. 

Air Force 

F–22A fighter aircraft 

The budget request included $95.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the F–22A aircraft program, including 

$64.0 million for shutting down the production line. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.75 billion to purchase an additional seven F–22A aircraft in fiscal year 2010. The 

committee also directs that the production shutdown costs be applied to other program requirements. 

The Air National Guard is charged with providing homeland aerial defense for the United States and is primarily responsible for 

executing the air sovereignty alert (ASA) mission as part of the National Defense Strategy. In carrying out this mission on a daily 

basis, the Air National Guard relies on more than 1,600 Air National Guard men and women who operate legacy F–15 and F–16 

fighter aircraft. The committee has been informed that the projected retirements of these legacy aircraft with which the Air National Guard currently executes the ASA mission will leave the 

Guard short of the required number of aircraft to execute this mission. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office has commented that ‘‘unless the Air Force modifies its current fielding 

schedules or extends the service lives of its F–15s and F–16s . . . 

it will lack viable aircraft to conduct ASA operations at some of the 

18 current ASA sites after fiscal year 2015.’’ 

The committee is concerned that no plan has been developed to 

fill this shortfall, either through modernizing legacy aircraft or 

buying new aircraft. Of specific concern is the fact that 80 percent 

of the F–16s will be gone in 8 years and since the majority of the 

ASA mission is accomplished by these F–16s, this will negatively 

impact the Air National Guard’s ability to execute the ASA mission. 

In a recent letter, the Director of the Air National Guard commented, ‘‘While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the nature 

of the current and future asymmetric threats to our Nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform 

with the requisite speed and detection to address them. The F–22’s 

unique capability in this arena enables it to handle a full spectrum 

of threats that the Air National Guard’s current legacy systems are 

not capable of addressing . . . basing F–22 (and eventually F–35s) 

at strategic Air National Guard locations throughout the United 

States while simultaneously making them available to rotationally 

support worldwide contingency operations is the most responsible 

approach to satisfying all of our Nation’s needs.’’ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
25 

For these reasons, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 

Force to develop a plan, including force structure and basing requirements, for executing the ASA mission over the next 2 decades. 

The Secretary shall deliver that plan to the congressional defense 

committees no later than March 1, 2010. The plan shall give full 

consideration toward: (1) stationing the additional F–22s procured 

in fiscal year 2010 at strategic Air National Guard locations; (2) 

creating new or expanding current Active/Guard associate units in 

which both active-duty and Air National Guard personnel could operate these additional aircraft, as well as F–22s and F–35s procured in the future; and (3) transitioning earlier model F–22s as 

well as F–35s procured in the future to the Air National Guard at 

the first possible opportunity. 

Global Hawk 

The budget request included $554.8 million for procurement of 

the Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned aerial system. The Government Accounting Office recommends a reduction to the request 

to slow production because of continued delays in the program, including operational testing. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million to the request. 

C–130 Avionics Modernization Program 

The budget request included $354.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C–130 Modifications Program, including $209.5 million for the C–130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). The C–130 AMP effort suffered a Nunn-McCurdy 

breach in February 2007, which caused the Department of Defense 

to significantly restructure and recertify the program in June 2007. 

Since last year, there have been additional delays in starting production, primarily because of software testing issues and a failure 

to complete required documentation. The milestone decision review 

to authorize production is at least 1 year later than the projected 

date of June, 2008. This means that production funds from fiscal 

years 2008 and 2009 will be awarded, at the earliest, sometime late 

this summer. 

While the committee remains supportive of the program, the 

committee sees no need to provide additional kit and installation 

funding in fiscal year 2010, with the program running at least a 

full year behind the planned schedule and not requiring additional 

production funds until fiscal year 2011. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $209.5 million in 

APAF for the C–130 AMP Modification Program. 

Advanced targeting pod 

The budget request included $103.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for other aircraft modifications, including 

$0.9 million for modifications of advanced targeting pods (ATP), 

also known as precision attack systems. 

The Air Force and the contractor team for the Litening ATP program have devised a spiral enhancement kit for existing Litening 

ATPs that will provide: 

(1) a new fourth generation forward-looking infrared sensor; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
26 

(2) a new fourth generation charged coupled device camera 

that enables targeting acquisition and identification; 

(3) a C-Band video downlink capability which will provide 

exceptional standoff capability outside of most surface-to-air 

threats at twice the distance of the earlier Litening ATPs; and 

(4) a laser spot tracker and a laser target imaging processor 

which yield much improved performance for targeting at longranges using precision weapons. The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million in APAF 

for the procurement of spiral upgrade kits for Litening ATPs. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

The budget request included $1.3 billion for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), in Missile Procurement, Air Force, 

line 24. The committee recommends a reduction of $88.0 million as 

a result of the delay of the Global Positioning System IIF satellite 

number 8 (GPS IIF–8). The EELV booster for GPS IIF–8 will have 

to be purchased in fiscal year 2011. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

The budget request included $1.3 billion for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), in Missile Procurement, Air Force, 

line 24. The committee recommends a reduction of $105.0 million 

as a result of the ability of the Air Force to utilize a previously purchased booster for AFSPC–4. As a result the funds requested for 

the AFSPC–4 booster in the fiscal year 2010 budget request are excess. 

Halvorsen loaders 

The budget request included $19.6 billion for Other Procurement, 

Air Force, but did not include any funds for Halvorsen loaders. The 

committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the procurement of 15 Halvorsen loaders to assist the Air Force to meet 

its requirement of 538 loaders. 

Unmanned modular threat emitter modernization 

The budget request included $40.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force, for Combat Training Ranges, but no funds to sustain the 

Unmanned Modular Threat Emitter (UMTE) modernization program. Current threat emitters supporting the Air Warfare Center 

Nellis Range Complex are out of date and inadequate for training, 

particularly with the F–22 and F–35. The UMTE modernization 

program will provide affordable and realistic threats at the required density, and the upgraded performance and extended life of 

existing assets needed at the Nevada Test and Training Range. 

The committee recommends authorization of $43.6 million, $3.0 

million above the request for UMTE. 

Joint threat emitter 

The budget request included $40.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF), for making improvements at combat training 

ranges, including $7.1 million for the joint threat emitter (JTE) 

program. These improvements are aimed at increasing the capability to support realistic air-to-air, air-to-ground, ground-to-air, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
27 

and electronic warfare training, along with the ability to record and 

play-back events for aircrew debriefing and analysis. 

The Air Force has developed a new infrared threat simulator for 

augmenting the JTE system, called the aviation crew trainer 

(ACT). The Air Force needs to buy additional ACT systems to be 

able to field that system to all of its training ranges. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million 

in OPAF for buying additional ACT systems for the JTE program. 

Application software 

The budget request included $111.3 million in Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), line 37, for Milsatcom Space but no funds 

for the Application Software Assurance Center of Excellence. The 

committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the Center 

to assess and strengthen defenses against cyber attacks at the software application level. 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund 

The base budget request included no funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) Fund to procure MRAP allterrain-vehicles (M–ATV). The overseas contingency operations 

(OCO) budget request, however, included $5,456.0 million to procure approximately 2,080 M–ATVs and sustain the approximately 

15,000 MRAP vehicles in the Department’s existing inventory, 

much of which is in Iraq. 

The committee is aware that the Department is close to a decision to increase the M–ATV requirement to more than 5,200 M– 

ATVs to support combat operations in Afghanistan. This process 

was spurred by the inadequate armor protection of the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle and the poor mobility of the 

MRAP vehicles in Afghanistan’s rugged terrain. In anticipation of 

an increase in the M–ATV requirement, the committee recommends an increase of $1,200.0 million for the MRAP Fund, 

thereby bringing the total funding in the base and OCO components to $6,956.0 million for M–ATVs. 

The committee is aware that the MRAP program office has funds 

available from lower-than-expected MRAP sustainment costs that 

can be shifted to begin production of additional M–ATVs. The committee is committed to ensuring that this critical force protection 

program proceeds rapidly with all the necessary resources. 

The committee also continues to monitor closely the Army’s ongoing assessment of its MRAP fleet and how it plans to incorporate 

the more than 12,000 MRAPs it has procured over the past 2 years 

into its current force structure and fleet of tactical wheeled vehicles, as directed by the Secretary of Defense. 

Defense-wide 

MC–130W multi-mission modifications 

The budget request included $31.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for MC–130 Multi-Mission Modifications. These modifications fulfill an urgent combat requirement to rapidly arm and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
28 

field multi-mission precision strike platforms. These aircraft will 

provide an enhanced armed-overwatch capability utilizing various 

sensors, communications systems, precision guided munitions, and 

a medium-caliber gun. The Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command has identified an $85.0 million shortfall in funding for these aircraft modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $85.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, C–130 Modifications, for the U.S. Special 

Operations Command. 

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement, Defense-wide, for advanced lightweight grenade launchers for special 

operations forces. These grenade launchers provide special operations forces with a vehicle and man-portable weapon to defeat personnel and lightly armored targets from extended distances. U.S. 

Special Operations Command has a basis of issue requirement for 

926 advanced lightweight grenade launchers, but has only fielded 

709 toward that requirement. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Small Arms and Weapons, to help the 

U.S. Special Operations Command meet its basis of issue requirement. 

Special operations visual augmentation systems 

The budget request included $33.7 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, for the special operations forces (SOF) visual augmentation, lasers, and sensor systems. However, no funding was 

included for the special operations visual augmentation systems 

hand-held imager/long-range. These hand-held imagers allow special operators to detect, recognize, and identify targets under varying conditions or at ranges at which the operator would not normally be able to see the target. The Commander of the U.S. Special 

Operations Command has identified a $15.4 million shortfall in 

funding for these hand-held imagers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.4 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Visual Augmentation, Lasers and 

Sensor Systems, for the U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Special operations forces multi-band inter/intra team radio 

The budget request included $32.9 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for Multi-band Inter/Intra Team Radios for special operations forces (SOF). These radios provide SOF with a lightweight, 

hand-held communications capability adequate for the air, ground, 

and maritime missions they are tasked to perform. The Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command has identified a 

$31.3 million shortfall in funding for these radios. 

The committee recommends an increase of $31.3 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Tactical Radio Systems, for the U.S. 

Special Operations Command. 

M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask 

The budget request included $92.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide for chemical and biological individual protection equipVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
29 

ment, including $48.4 million for the Joint Service General Purpose 

Mask (JSPGM). However, there was no funding for the special operations forces variant of the JSPGM, the M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask (JCBPM). The committee recommends an 

increase of $4.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Line 93, for 

M53 JCBPM. 

United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has a validated requirement for 14,601 JCBPMs, but only 70 percent of that 

requirement has been procured to date. Additional funding for this 

program would allow the purchase of the remaining 30 percent of 

the JCBPMs that are required by SOCOM. 

Procurement of computing services 

The committee recommends a total reduction of $300.0 million 

from service and defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts 

that support the procurement and delivery of computing services. 

The reductions include a $75.0 million decrease from each of the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide accounts. The committee 

does not intend for these reductions to be assessed against Defense 

Information Systems Agency (DISA) computing services activities. 

The committee directs the services to aggressively explore increased opportunities to utilize DISA computing services and eliminate redundant, wasteful service-specific computing services activities. The committee notes that consolidation of computing services 

activities, such as reductions in numbers of computing centers, 

data storage systems, and electronic file servers, has saved the Department of Defense an estimated $200.0 million or more annually 

since 1990, according to DISA. Further, a June 2007 independent 

assessment of DISA’s computing services noted that they 

‘‘...provided world-class computing services that enable the DOD 

community to better execute their missions,’’ and compared DISA’s 

services favorably to general government, federal, and workload 

peers. The assessment also recommended continuing assessment of 

organizational staffing, structure, and realignment, as well as continued maturation of data center processes. Finally, the committee 

notes that uncoordinated, Department-wide deployment of servers, 

mainframes, data warehouses, websites, and other computing services has resulted in inefficiencies, underutilization of computing infrastructure, and interoperability difficulties. 

The committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration initiate independent, comparative benchmarking studies of computing services 

across the Department of Defense to inform and accelerate the consolidation of the provision of computing services to increase efficiency, improve services, and reduce costs. 

Items of Special Interest 

Body armor protocol and requirements 

The committee concurs with the Department of Defense Inspector General’s recommendation that the Department should establish standardization for testing and evaluation of all body armor 

components. Standard protocols by all military departments will 

improve confidence in the level of ballistic protection provided by 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
30 

the Department and will better facilitate rapid procurement and 

fielding. The committee believes the use of common test and evaluation standards will also enable commercial ballistic test facilities 

and body armor component producers to more quickly and effectively respond to the Department’s requirements. 

Additionally, the committee recommends the Department consult 

a peer review of any proposed standardized test and evaluation 

procedures from ballistics experts in other federal agencies and departments prior to publication. The committee is aware that such 

expertise resides in the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in the National Institute 

of Justice. The committee would also recommend that representatives from commercial ballistics test facilities be given an opportunity to comment on the draft test and evaluation standards before final versions are issued. 

The committee believes body armor requirements for the military 

services should be coordinated through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process. The committee encourages the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to review and determine if an update to the current body armor requirements is 

necessary. 

The committee echoes the testimony of the Vice Chief of Staff of 

the Army and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

that there is an urgent need to lighten the warfighter’s combat 

load. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider establishing and funding a Department-wide task force which could 

expedite efforts and advancements in weight reduction for body 

armor. The committee highlights similar task forces such as the 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Task Force and the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force which 

were created to confront the urgent operational requirements for 

Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Irregular warfare in the Navy 

In prepared statements before the committee on the posture of 

the Department of Defense regarding the authorization request for 

fiscal year 2010, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff both observed that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) needed to shift relative emphasis in resource allocations towards the threats we face today and will likely face tomorrow. 

One of those threats encompasses the irregular warfare (IW) mission area. The committee is concerned that DOD has not shifted 

enough emphasis quickly enough in certain areas. One such area 

is in the Department of the Navy’s budget for IW programs, which 

may be inadequate to achieve the objectives the Secretary has laid 

out. 

A major component of the Navy’s ability to contribute to the IW 

mission area is the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command 

(NECC). A large proportion of NECC force structure is ground 

equipment (i.e., SEABEE equipment and vehicles), underwater 

demolition and diving equipment, small boats, riverine craft and 

maritime expeditionary force equipment. These categories of equipment have seen persistent use and have been exposed to the harsh 

elements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Central ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
31 

mand theater of operations. The committee understands that much 

of that equipment will be left behind or given to local forces, such 

as the Iraqi National Army or police forces, when the U.S. withdraws the bulk of its forces. 

The committee expects that the Quadrennial Defense Review will 

review this situation and help inform DOD on the requirements to 

fully fund NECC modernization and sustainment requirements, 

and that the Navy will adequately apply resources to those requirements in future budgets. In addition, the committee believes that 

any such review of NECC requirements should account for equipment shortfalls due to: (1) transferring equipment to local forces; 

(2) changing force structure requirements; (3) changing threat levels requiring equipment modifications or different equipment entirely; (4) losing equipment in combat; (5) operating beyond economic service life; and (6) operating in environments which result 

in excessive wear and tear. 

Joint cargo aircraft 

The budget request included $319.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), to purchase eight C–27J Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). 

Over the past several years, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has produced a number of studies for Joint Cargo Aircraft, including an Analysis of Alternatives, which the Army conducted in 

2005–2006. More recent studies produced by the RAND Corporation as late as 2009 suggest that the requirement for the JCA program would be 78 aircraft. Originally, both the Army and Air Force 

planned to buy JCA aircraft, with 54 and 24 aircraft in the futureyears defense program for the Army and Air Force, respectively. 

This year, DOD, the Army, and the Air Force are recommending 

that the Air Force assume sole responsibility for the JCA program 

and mission set. Against that backdrop, the committee heard testimony from DOD and Air Force officials on their commitment to replace the Army National Guard’s C–23 Sherpa aircraft. That testimony reflected the Army’s need for less than a full load of cargo 

carrying capacity for the ‘‘last tactical mile,’’ where the C–27J may 

be able to operate more effectively and efficiently than other Army 

or Air Force aircraft. 

This year, both the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force testified that the correct number of C–27J aircraft is at least 

38, and that the goal for the program as identified in the budget 

request for a program of 38 C–27s was a floor, not the ceiling. 

The committee understands that DOD intends to review the 

whole issue of intra-theater airlift in terms of relative balance between heavy-lift helicopters, C–27s, and C–130s in the pending 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee believes that 

any complete review of intra-theater airlift requirements and programs must give due consideration to the potential requirements 

for and contribution of these systems to the homeland security mission. 

The committee will continue to follow this program through the 

QDR process and provide oversight to ensure that: (1) the program’s schedule is maintained during transition from Army to Air 

Force management; (2) the Air Force meets flight test and aircraft 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
32 

worthiness certification schedules; (3) that the Department meets 

all Operational Test and Evaluation objectives in 2010; and (4) the 

Air Force satisfies the Army’s direct support airlift requirements. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in conjunction with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 120 

days of enactment of this Act on the Air Force’s plans for: (1) integrating these aircraft in the Department of the Air Force’s force 

structure; (2) deploying these aircraft to support combatant commander requirements; and (3) permanent stationing for these aircraft. 

Reports to Congress on up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles and mine resistant ambush protected vehicle 

The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 

Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109– 

13) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after enactment, and every 60 days thereafter until the termination of Operation Iraqi Freedom, setting forth the current requirements of the 

armed forces for Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 

Vehicles (HMMWVs). The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, 

Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act (House Report 110– 

104) directed the military services to jointly report on the mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle program’s status, requirements, and execution of funds. 

While both of these reports provide helpful information to the 

congressional defense committees, the committee believes the picture remains incomplete. As such, the committee directs the military services to consolidate these two reports into one single report 

that details the following information for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: (1) current requirements for up-armored HMMWVs, 

MRAPs, and MRAP all-terrain-vehicles; (2) status of theater equipment (i.e., quantities and vehicles readiness levels); and (3) execution of funds to support these programs. 

Unmanned aerial vehicle planning 

The Air Force is required to acquire and maintain enough Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), along with the 

processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) capacity, for 50 

combat air patrols (CAP). The committee is aware that U.S. Strategic Command is conducting a force mix study that may well result in an increase in the required number of CAPs. 

The Air Force has produced a plan to achieve the 50–CAP requirement by September 2011. The UAV Task Force in the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics (USD(AT&L)) is concerned that the Air Force plan is substantially underfunded, specifically in sustainment of the Predator 

portion of the planned fleet, the money for which was re-directed 

to Reaper procurement. While the Air Force states that it will fully 

fund the plan in the next budget cycle, the Task Force expects that 

budget pressures on the Air Force will make it very difficult for the 

Air Force to make good on this pledge. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
33 

The Air Force plan also shows that there will be a shortage of 

the number of aircraft required to fully equip the number of CAPs 

the Air Force is pledged to provide between 2010 and 2013. The Air 

Force plan is to compensate for the shortage by maintaining a 

‘‘surge’’ profile, whereby less than the four aircraft standard for a 

CAP will be operated at higher tempo. The reason for this ‘‘flat 

spot’’ in the aircraft inventory is that funds appropriated in fiscal 

year 2009 for production of 18 Predators have not been obligated 

and the Air Force indicates that the funds will be reprogrammed 

for other activities. 

The committee regards this as unacceptable and will not be favorably inclined towards a future reprogramming request. The 

committee urges the Secretary of Defense to resolve the issues between the Air Force and USD (AT&L) promptly and proceed to procure the Predator aircraft approved by Congress. 

The committee directs the USD (AT&L) to report to the congressional intelligence and defense committees coincident with the submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget request on: • The number of endurance UAV CAPs required by date 

through the Future Years Defense Program; • The Department’s plans, including funding, to achieve the 

required CAP levels; • The mix of Predators and Reapers over time, including the 

mix of Predator 1Bs and 1Cs; • The adequacy of data relay and PED resources to support 

the CAPs, including appropriately cleared analysts to support sensitive special operations; and • How the Department intends to manage the relationship between the Air Force Global Hawk and the Navy Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance version of the RQ–4, in terms of interoperability 

and data relays. 

The report also should include an update on the Department’s efforts to engage the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on all 

aspects of integrating UAVs into the national airspace control system. The committee is discouraged that the FAA has yet to establish a UAV program office to work jointly with DOD on this critical 

challenge. The committee believes that an FAA program office with 

a separate funding line and adequate resources is essential for the 

FAA to meet its obligations in this area. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(35) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Continued development of competitive propulsion system 

for the Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department to obligate sufficient funds for fiscal year 2010 for the 

continued development and procurement of the F136 competitive 

propulsion system for the F–35 Lightning II to ensure that the Department continues the system development and demonstration 

(SDD) program during fiscal year 2010. The committee understands that current plans for the F136 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 

propulsion system would complete the development in sufficient 

time to conduct a first competitive contract award in fiscal year 

2012, concurrent with the award for the sixth lot of low-rate initial 

production aircraft. 

The budget request included $1,741.3 million in PE 64800N, and 

$1,858.1 million in PE 64800F for continued development of the 

JSF program, but included no funds for continuing the SDD phase 

of the F136 program. 

The committee continues to believe that, in light of studies performed by the Department of Defense, the Institute for Defense 

Analyses, and the Government Accountability Office, it is in the 

best interests of the Nation to continue the development of the 

F136. Though the results of these studies were, in the aggregate, 

inconclusive on whether there would be a financial benefit to the 

Department in continuing to develop a competitive propulsion system for the JSF program, the committee notes that all studies 

identified significant non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive program. These included better engine performance; improved 

contractor responsiveness; a more robust industrial base; increased 

engine reliability; and improved operational readiness. The committee believes that the benefits, which could be derived from the 

non-financial factors, favor continuing the JSF competitive propulsion system program. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $438.9 million for continuing F136 SDD, with half that amount added to PE 

64800N and the other half added to PE 64800F. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
36 

Enhancement of duties of Director of Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center with respect to 

the major range and test facility base (sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

authority of the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center to review changes to major test range 

funding before changes are implemented. The committee established the Test Resource Management Center in order to ensure 

that the Department is adequately investing in the test capabilities 

it requires to develop and deploy needed defense systems to meet 

current and emerging operational needs. The provision would allow 

the Director to review changes to test resource funding that occur 

outside the traditional planning, programming, and budgeting process, as well as to ensure that the Director has access to all the information he or she needs to make recommendations to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on 

test resource issues. 

Guidance on specification of funding requested for operation, sustainment, modernization, and personnel of 

major ranges and test facilities (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the information required in budget justification materials delivered to 

Congress describing amounts requested for test and evaluation activities. The committee is concerned that existing justification materials provide incomplete and inconsistent information and are not 

comparable across services and agencies. The committee believes 

that the Army, Air Force, and the Defense Information Systems 

Agency (DISA) are each underfunding test and evaluation capabilities potentially to the long-term detriment of the Department of 

Defense and its ability to develop and field new systems. The committee believes that the Director of the Test Resource Management 

Center should play a key role in ensuring that the budget justification materials are prepared and displayed in a consistent manner 

across the Department to provide maximum transparency for Congress and the public. 

Permanent authority for the Joint Defense Manufacturing 

Technology Panel (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

establishment of a Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel 

(JDMTP) as a permanent part of the statutorily mandated Manufacturing Technology Program. The committee notes that the December 2008 Report to Congress on Implementation of Department 

of Defense ManTech Projects estimated that investments in the 

program made between fiscal years 2003 and 2005 could result in 

over $6.3 billion in savings for the Department through lower production costs and increased systems reliability and performance. 

The committee believes that the activities of the existing JDMTP 

have contributed significantly to these types of successes for the 

program, as well as other important initiatives, such as the use of 

manufacturing readiness level assessment tools, investment in joint 

manufacturing research projects, and enhanced dissemination of 

manufacturing advances into the defense industrial base. The comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
37 

mittee directs the services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to continue to support the activities and initiatives of the 

JDMTP in order to continue to reduce life cycle and acquisition 

costs for defense systems. 

Extension and enhancement of Global Research Watch program (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the requirement for the Department to execute the Global Research 

Watch program. The program was established by the committee to 

provide a centralized repository of information on international research and technology capabilities in areas of interest to the Department for the purposes of enabling international cooperative activities and providing data and analyses to inform Department research investment decisions. The provision would also limit the 

funds available to military department programs that support 

international research assessment activities until the military departments provide information consistent with the statutory goals 

of the Global Research Watch program to the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering. 

The committee notes that Department efforts to comply with the 

statutory requirement for the program have not been complete or 

successful to date. The committee further notes that the Department has requested funding for fiscal year 2010 in the Militarily 

Critical Technologies Program for the purpose of improving and expanding ‘‘the focus of the DSTL [Defense Science and Technology 

List] effort to represent a broader global research watch.’’ 

Three-year extension of authority for prizes for advanced 

technology achievements (sec. 216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

Department of Defense’s authority to award prizes for advanced 

technology achievements. The committee notes that the Department has successfully used this authority to hold challenge competitions for robotic vehicles and wearable power technologies. 

These competitions have encouraged large groups of researchers 

and innovators to work on defense challenges for the first time, 

highlighted the importance of defense research and technology to 

address warfighter needs, and advanced state-of-the-art critical defense technologies. 

Modification of report requirements regarding defense 

science and technology program (sec. 217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

funding objective established by Congress for the defense science 

and technology program as well as the reporting requirements triggered when the Department fails to achieve established goals. The 

committee notes that the Department’s rhetoric on modernizing defense capabilities to meet the emerging threats of the 21st century 

does not match its investment strategy for the programs that develop those capabilities. The committee notes that the fiscal year 

2010 budget request for science and technology programs has decreased by over $50.0 million in constant dollars with respect to the 

fiscal year 2009 budget request. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
38 

The committee notes that reduced investments in science and 

technology programs will inevitably lead to a number of negative 

consequences. First, the Department will not be able to take advantage of new research ideas and innovative technologies that are 

being developed within the private sector, which may lead to enhanced defense capabilities. Second, the United States may lose the 

technical lead it enjoys in critical defense research areas such as 

advanced materials, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and cybersecurity to global competitors. Both of these outcomes would result in 

a long-term loss of military superiority for the United States. The 

committee’s provision requires the Department to provide information to Congress that will help address both of these concerns and 

better evaluate future science and technology budget submissions. 

Programs for ground combat vehicle and self propelled 

howitzer capabilities for the Army (sec. 218) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out programs to develop, test, and 

field an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable 

next-generation ground combat vehicle and next-generation selfpropelled howitzer for the Army. The Secretary of Defense is further required to develop a strategy and plan for each of these programs and to report annually on the investments made for each in 

the budget request. 

On April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates announced the restructuring of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program and cancelled the manned ground vehicle (MGV) component of the program, including the non-line of sight cannon (NLOS-C). Secretary 

Gates was concerned that there were significant unanswered questions in the FCS vehicle design strategy and that despite some adjustments to the MGVs, they did not adequately reflect the lessons 

of counterinsurgency and close quarters combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates was also critical that the Army’s vehicle modernization and equipping strategy did not include a role for 

Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles that have been used 

successfully in current conflicts. After re-evaluating requirements, 

technology, and approach, the Army will re-launch its next-generation ground combat vehicle modernization program, including a 

competitive bidding process. Also, in his April 6th announcement, 

and again shortly after at a speech delivered to the Army War College, Secretary Gates emphasized his conviction that the Army 

needs a next-generation ground combat vehicle program and his 

commitment to support the Army’s resource requirements to field 

this vehicle in 5 to 7 years. 

Secretary Gates’ decisions were implemented on June 23, 2009, 

by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics issuing an Acquisition Decision Memorandum to the Secretary of the Army directing the cancellation of the FCS Brigade 

Combat Team acquisition program and a stop-work order for the 

NLOS–C. 

The committee recognizes that the Army will need some time to 

react to these programmatic changes and reexamine its ground 

combat vehicle requirements. The committee is also aware that 

Army modernization priorities and programs are subject to further 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
39 

adjustment depending upon the analysis and recommendations of 

the Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee is concerned that 

Secretary Gates’ pronouncement that the Army will have a new 

ground combat vehicle in 5 to 7 years and the Chief of Staff of the 

Army’s target fielding for such a system by 2015 to 2017 may be 

introducing schedule pressure on the program before its requirements have been defined and technologically realistic and affordable alternatives considered. 

The committee has been a strong supporter of Army modernization over the years, including FCS and its MGV and NLOS–C components. However, the committee is concerned that instability in 

Army modernization strategy and plans contributes to management problems and avoidable cost, schedule, and technology risk. 

The Army’s best chance to ultimately deliver a next-generation 

ground combat vehicle and a self-propelled howitzer depends on the 

creation of well planned, realistic, and affordable programs 

resourced and managed in a disciplined manner consistent with acquisition law and regulation. 

The recommended provision would direct the creation of two development programs, one each for a next-generation ground combat 

vehicle and a next-generation self-propelled howitzer to ensure the 

continuation of the Army’s effort to meet its future requirements 

for these capabilities. To the extent practical, these new programs 

should take advantage of the range of relevant and mature technologies already developed as part of the full FCS program and its 

MGV and NLOS–C components. 

The recommended provision would also require appropriate acquisition strategies and plans to ensure that these programs comply with the requirements of the recently enacted Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–124). Additionally, the provision would require an annual report detailing the 

investments requested to develop these capabilities and ensure 

that the Defense Department is honoring its commitment that necessary resources will be available for the next-generation ground 

combat vehicle to provide program stability and reduce risk. 

Finally, the committee understands that continuing analysis and 

important initial decisions will be made in the coming months with 

regard to the next-generation ground combat vehicle program. Information from these analyses and decisions could be available for 

the committee’s consideration before completing action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees not later than September 

8, 2009, that updates the Army’s strategy and plans for the nextgeneration ground combat vehicle program, including its requirements determination, analysis of alternatives, and any cost and 

schedule estimates. 

Assessment of technological maturity and integration risk 

of Army modernization programs (sec. 219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of Defense Research and Engineering to review and assess 

the technological maturity and integration risk of the technologies 

critical to the development and deployment of systems and techVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
40 

nologies related to the platforms, sensors, and networks of the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The committee understands that 

major restructuring of the FCS program was partially driven by 

concerns over the lack of technological maturity of important elements of this system of systems. The committee believes that a detailed technical review and analysis of FCS-related technologies 

and associated systems will provide important insight and data to 

inform the requirements, structure, baseline, and schedule for a 

successor modernization program, as well as to help prioritize the 

investment of resources. 

The committee notes that these types of reviews and assessments 

are consistent with the mandates established in the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23). 

Assessment of strategy for technology for modernization of 

the combat vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle fleets 

(sec. 220) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent assessment of 

a strategy for technology development that could support the modernization of the defense combat vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. The committee notes that these types of vehicles have 

played a critical role in the military operations of various nations 

in operations in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have incorporated new technologies, such as armor and improvised explosive 

device jammers, as a result of lessons learned from those operations. 

In light of the major restructuring of the Future Combat Systems 

program; the termination of the Manned Ground Vehicle program; 

the initiation of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program; the fielding of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles; the desire to reduce energy costs to the Department of Defense; and the proliferation of threats such as improvised explosive devices, explosively 

formed penetrators, and rocket propelled grenades; the committee 

believes that it is an opportune time to reshape the Department’s 

vehicle modernization research, development, and fielding strategies, so as to prioritize capability gaps that need to be addressed 

and investments that will support those efforts. The committee understands that some of these discussions are currently ongoing in 

the Department of Defense and believes that an independent technical assessment will contribute useful data and analysis to those 

deliberations. 

The committee directs that this assessment address all aspects 

of vehicle systems and the full range of operational missions for the 

Army, Marine Corps, and U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Systems engineering and prototyping program (sec. 221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

systems engineering and prototyping program in the Department of 

Defense under the management of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

The committee notes that the Weapons Acquisition Reform Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) has highlighted the need for a greater 

emphasis on systems engineering and prototyping as a means to 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
41 

improve the acquisition process. The recommended provision would 

support those efforts by establishing a program that will help build 

and train the government and industry workforce needed to perform those critical design and engineering tasks. Through the funding of innovative, rapid systems engineering and prototyping 

projects this initiative will encourage the exercising of the Nation’s 

systems engineering technical workforce as well as the development of systems and technology that can address Department 

needs and requirements. 

The provision would require the Under Secretary to manage the 

program through the services and defense agencies and would require cost sharing between organizations to help maximize the 

probability of addressing joint problems, grow the base of experienced acquisition personnel, and promote the likelihood of transition into programs of record or deployment. The committee intends 

that programs funded under the programs be selected on a competitive basis. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 

an authorization of funding to support the initiation of this program. 

Finally, the committee notes that this provision is not intended 

to change in any way the requirements of the recently enacted 

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

23) regarding competitive prototyping. 

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs 

Sense of Congress on ballistic missile defense (sec. 241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress regarding ballistic missile defense, namely that 

the United States should develop, test, field, and maintain operationally effective, cost-effective, affordable, reliable, suitable, and 

survivable ballistic missile defense systems that are capable of defending the United States, its forward deployed forces, allies, and 

other friendly nations from the threat of ballistic missile attacks 

from nations such as North Korea and Iran; that the missile defense force structure and inventory levels of such missile defense 

systems should be determined based on an assessment of ballistic 

missile threats and a determination by senior military leaders, 

combatant commanders, and defense officials of the requirements 

and capabilities needed to address those threats; and that the test 

and evaluation program for such missile defense systems should be 

rigorous, robust, operationally realistic, and capable of providing a 

high level of confidence in the capability of such systems, including 

their continuing effectiveness over the course of their service lives, 

and that adequate resources should be available for such test and 

evaluation program, including interceptor missiles and targets for 

flight tests. 

Comprehensive plan for test and evaluation of the ballistic 

missile defense system (sec. 242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive plan for the developmental and operational testing and evaluation of the Ballistic 

Missile Defense System and its various elements. The plan would 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
42 

include a number of specific elements related to objectives, procedures, data requirements, and related test activities. The provision 

would require the Secretary to submit an unclassified report to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2011, 

setting forth and describing the test plan and each of its elements. 

Additionally, the report would include a description of test and 

evaluation activities specifically related to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element, including plans for salvo tests, 

multiple simultaneous target engagement testing, intercept testing 

using the Cobra Dane radar as the engagement sensor, and plans 

to test and demonstrate the ability of the GMD system to accomplish its mission over the planned term of its operational service 

life (sustainment testing). 

Assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(sec. 243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review 

and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, to conduct an assessment 

of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, and future options for the GMD element. The assessment would consider such matters as: the military 

requirement for GMD capabilities; current and planned GMD capabilities; force structure and inventory levels; infrastructure; and the 

number of Ground-Based Interceptors needed for operational and 

testing purposes. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to establish a 

plan for the GMD element, covering such matters as the GMD program schedule, funding plan, maintaining the effectiveness of the 

GMD element over the course of its service life; flight testing; and 

production of Ground-Based Interceptors for operational and testing purposes. 

The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees, at the time of the budget submission for fiscal year 2011, a report setting forth the results of the 

assessment and a report setting forth the plan required in the provision. 

The provision would also express the Sense of Congress concerning the GMD element. 

The committee is aware that, as part of its plan to field 30 effective operational Ground-Based Interceptors, the Missile Defense 

Agency plans to complete seven silos at Missile Field 2 at Fort 

Greely, Alaska, to replace the older silos at Missile Field 1. The 

committee notes that four of the seven silos at Missile Field 2 are 

nearly complete, and that it would be possible to complete all seven 

silos in fiscal year 2010 with additional funding. The committee understands there could be a cost savings benefit to such an acceleration. If the Department believes there is benefit to completing the 

seven silos in Missile Field 2 during fiscal year 2010, the committee would look favorably upon a reprogramming request from 

the Secretary of Defense to provide the funds to complete the seven 

silos in fiscal year 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
43 

Report on potential missile defense cooperation with Russia 

(sec. 244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 days after enactment of this 

Act, setting forth potential options for cooperation among or between the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO), and the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense. 

The report would include a description of proposals made by the 

United States, NATO, or the Russian Federation for such cooperation, as well as a description of data sharing options, assessments 

of the potential for certain types of cooperation, and an assessment 

of the potential security benefits of such cooperation. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Repeal of requirement for biennial Joint Warfighting 

Science and Technology Plan (sec. 251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

biennial Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan reporting 

requirement. The committee commends efforts to invest in research 

and technologies that will develop joint warfighting capabilities, 

but believes that Department resources can be better invested in 

higher priority research or management endeavors. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Army basic research 

The budget request included $377.3 million for Army basic research programs. The Army’s basic research program makes investments in a number of thrust areas including materials science, 

mathematical and information sciences, network science, and environmental science. Consistent with those research thrusts, the committee recommends increases in PE 61102A of an additional $3.5 

million for ballistic protection materials research and an additional 

$2.0 million for research characterizing critical global natural environments in support of military operations worldwide. The committee also recommends increases in PE 61103A of $2.0 million for 

nanocomposte materials research; $2.0 million for research on open 

source intelligence analyses techniques; $2.0 million for research on 

advanced nanoscale memory devices and nanosensors; $1.0 million 

for electrolyte research for battery applications; $1.2 million for 

immersive simulation research; $2.0 million for materials processing research; and $1.5 million for structural response modeling 

and analysis. 

Minerva 

The budget request included $88.4 million in PE 61103A for 

Army university research initiatives. This account includes a total 

of $13.3 million for the Minerva Research Initiative, a portion of 

the roughly $20.0 million being requested for this purpose across 

the Department of Defense. The committee directs that at least 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
44 

$7.5 million of the amount requested in PE 61103A be used to develop in-house Department of Defense capabilities at defense laboratories and schools consistent with the research goals of the Minerva Initiative. Further, the committee directs that no Minerva 

Initiative funds may be transferred to the National Science Foundation unless that agency equally matches any Department of Defense funding provided for research projects funded under the Initiative. 

Materials technologies 

The budget request included $27.2 million in PE 62105A for applied research on materials technology. The committee notes that 

the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Department of Defense Energy Strategy recommended that the Department continue 

to invest in mobile, in-theater synthetic fuels processes which 

would address the Department’s fuel problem by reducing 

battlespace fuel demand. Consistent with that recommendation, the 

committee recommends an additional $4.0 million for the research 

on advanced biofuels. 

The Army’s current Future Combat Systems armor development 

technology objective seeks to develop lightweight, affordable, 

manufacturable armor protection against a variety of threats. In 

support of that objective, the committee recommends an additional 

$3.0 million for applied composite materials research; $3.0 million 

for research on high strength glass fibers for armor applications; 

$2.5 million for advanced moldable composite armor technology development; $2.0 million for advanced manufacturing technologies; 

and $4.5 million for smart materials and structures research. 

The 2007 report on the Defense Nanotechnology Research Program indicated that the Department is working to increase investments in nanomanufacturing since ‘‘this area remains a significant 

barrier to the commercialization of nanomaterials and nanotechnology-based products.’’ The committee recommends an additional $4.0 

million for research on manufacturing of nanosensors for military 

applications. 

Sensor research 

The budget request included $50.6 million in PE 62120A for applied research on sensors and electronic survivability. The 2007 Department of Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development 

Report recommended that sustained support of development of 

novel devices and systems was necessary to enhance Department 

of Defense capabilities in information technology, energy storage, 

and other areas. In support of that recommendation, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.5 million for research on nanoelectronic memory, sensor, and energy devices. 

Manned-unmanned systems teaming 

The budget request included $41.3 million in PE 62211A for research on aviation technologies. The 2005 National Research Council report on ‘‘Interfaces for Ground and Air Military Robots’’ identified one of the goals of Army efforts in robotics is to support collaborative operations among manned and unmanned vehicles. In 

support of that goal, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
45 

million for development of guidance, navigation, and control technologies for manned-unmanned systems teaming operations. 

Advanced concepts and simulation 

The budget request included $17.5 million in PE 62308A for advanced concepts and simulation research. The 2006 National Research Council study on ‘‘Defense Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis’’ recommended research investment on video game-based training and simulation to further training and education activities in 

the Department of Defense. Consistent with that recommendation, 

the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for cognitive 

modeling and simulation research to support tactical decision-making by military planners in training and operational scenarios. 

Ground vehicle research 

The budget request included $55.9 million in PE 62601A and $89.6 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and 

automotive technologies. The Army has established a technology 

objective to develop advanced survivability systems for the protection of crew and passengers in current and future tactical wheeled 

vehicles. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an 

increase of $2.0 million in PE 63005A for systems that identify and 

warn vehicles of incoming threats, and $11.0 million in PE 62601A 

for research on advanced coatings, composite materials, and metals 

for vehicle armor and vehicle shelters. 

The Army has established a technology objective to develop and 

demonstrate wheeled vehicle power and mobility technologies, including commercial engines adapted to military requirements that 

reduce cost, increase efficiency, and improve reliability. To support 

these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62601A for research on engine and transmission friction 

and wear, and an increase of $23.5 million in PE 63005A for development of suspension systems, advanced power electronics, reliability assessment systems, and other engine subsystems. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 

PE 62601A for vehicle systems engineering and an additional $4.0 

million in PE 63005A for equipment to accurately measure vehicle 

engine performance. These additions are to support Army efforts to 

integrate advanced armors, networks, active protection systems, 

power and propulsion systems, and to enhance the government 

workforce’s capabilities to replace the systems engineering efforts 

that have been traditionally performed by contractors. 

Army electromagnetic gun 

The budget request included $11.7 million in PE 63004A, $4.1 

million in PE 62618A, and $6.4 million in PE 61104A for activities 

related to the Army’s Electromagnetic (EM) Gun initiative. The 

committee believes that the technologies related to EM Gun size, 

weight, power, and thermal management require a platform much 

larger than the system currently or will prospectively provide in direct-fire capability to the Army, therefore calling into question the 

operational utility of the system as currently envisioned. The committee is also concerned that the Army, Navy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency collaborative program on EM gun 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
46 

technologies, as envisioned originally by Congress and the Department of Defense, has never materialized. Therefore, the committee 

reduces funding relating to the Army’s EM Gun initiative by $11.5 

million in PE 63004A and $2.0 million in PE 62618A. The committee continues to authorize funding for activities on power and 

energy issues and basic research efforts to support development of 

future EM gun systems. 

Reactive armor technologies 

The budget request included $61.8 million in PE 62618A for ballistics technologies. The Army has established a technology objective to develop armor and vehicle structure technologies to influence all future generations of combat vehicles. To support this effort and enhance industrial production capacity, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research on reactive armor 

systems. 

Acoustic sensors systems 

The budget request included $41.1 million in PE 62624A for applied research on weapons and munitions technology. The Army’s 

Sensor and Information Fusion for Improved Hostile Fire Situational Awareness technology objective seeks to develop enhanced 

acoustic and other sensors to detect, locate, and classify a wide 

range of threats. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for continued development of 

gunfire detection and location systems, and an additional $3.0 million for research on innovative acoustic signal processing techniques to address high clutter environment battlefield sensing challenges. 

Army electronics research 

The budget request included $61.4 million in PE 62705A for research on electronics and electronic devices. The Army’s non-primary power system technology objective seeks to provide electrical 

power solutions for ground vehicles during engine-off operations. In 

support of that goal, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 

million for hybrid battery systems that could be used during silent 

watch operations. 

The Army’s dismounted soldier power technology objective seeks 

to develop and demonstrate technologies to provide small, lightweight, low-cost power sources. Consistent with that objective, the 

committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research on 

hybrid portable power systems. 

Military engineering technology 

The budget request included $54.8 million in PE 62784A for military engineering technologies. In support of efforts to develop lower 

cost, lightweight, blast resistant materials for use at forward operating bases and other military installations, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research on ballistic materials for force protection applications. 

The Army’s has established a technology objective to improve 

battlespace and terrain awareness for forces by creating actionable 

information from terrain, atmospheric, and weather impacts and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
47 

their effects on Army assets. In support of this objective, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for geosciences and 

atmospheric research. 

The Army has a stated objective to create prognostics and diagnostic systems for operational readiness and condition-based maintenance by developing technologies to detect health status and performance as well as environmental conditions and metrics that 

limit the lifetime of military assets. In support of this objective, the 

committee recommends an additional $3.5 million for sensors and 

communication systems to monitor structural integrity of defense 

infrastructure. 

Ballistic protection systems 

The budget request included $27.1 million in PE 62787A for 

warfighter technologies. The Army is currently undertaking efforts 

to improve the ballistic protection capabilities of infrastructures at 

base camps in order to reduce vulnerability to mortars and improvised explosive devices. In support of those efforts, the committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for development of advanced composite ballistic panels. 

The Army’s enhanced performance personnel armor technology 

objective seeks to develop materials technology and tools to address 

emerging ballistic and blast threats. In support of that objective, 

the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research 

on enhanced ballistic protection materials. In order to help address 

the threat of burn injuries to deployed warfighters, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.5 million for thermal resistant fiber 

research. 

Medical technologies 

The budget request included $99.0 million in PE 62787A for applied research on medical technologies. In support of the Army’s objective to develop fluid resuscitation technology to reduce injury 

and loss of life on the battlefield, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on advanced functional nanomaterials for biological processes such as drug and critical fluid delivery. 

To support development of combat casualty care capabilities, the 

committee recommends an additional $5.5 million for research on 

hemorrhaging, advanced tissue replacement, and bone regeneration 

relevant to military trauma care; an additional $3.5 million for biomechanics research to evaluate the risk of brain injury from blast 

and blunt loading; $3.5 million for research on equipment designs 

to reduce neurotrauma in warfighters; and $5.0 million for research 

on explosion blast interactions with protective equipment and personnel. The committee also recommends an additional $2.5 million 

for research on secondary trauma issues facing service personnel 

who are treating mental health problems, in coordination with existing Army and Department of Defense programs in this area. 

The committee notes that although the Department of Defense 

has significantly increased investments in medical research over 

previous budget requests, there is still limited investment in capabilities to prevent and treat infectious diseases. To enhance efforts 

in this area, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
48 

for research on treatments for dengue fever and $2.5 million for 

malaria vaccine research. 

Army advanced medical research and technologies 

The budget request included $72.9 million in PE 63002A for advanced medical technologies. The Army’s medical research program 

on this effort focuses on warfighter medical protection performance 

standards that demonstrate and transition technologies and tools 

associated with biomechanical-based health risks, injury assessment and prediction, soldier survivability, and performance during 

continuous operations. Consistent with these efforts, the committee 

recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of biosensor controller and monitor systems, and $2.5 million for body 

temperature conditioning technologies. 

The committee notes that the Army has established the Armed 

Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM). The committee 

notes that AFIRM is developing clinical therapies in areas including burn repair, wound healing, and limb reconstruction, regeneration, or transplantation. The committee recommends an additional 

$4.0 million to support the activities of the institute. 

The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency for its work developing advanced prosthetics technologies for use by wounded warriors. In support of these efforts, 

the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for lower 

limb prosthetics development, and $8.0 million to support transition of prosthetics technologies to clinical practice to improve amputee patient care. The committee further recommends an additional $7.5 million for 

research on the integration of medical technologies to address combat casualty care issues, and $12.0 million to support research on 

Gulf War illnesses. 

Army aviation technologies 

The budget request included $60.1 million in PE 63003A for advanced aviation technologies. The Army’s aviation science and technology program includes funding for the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program. The goal of the AATE program is to 

develop the next generation utility and attack helicopter engine. In 

support of that goal, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 

million for the AATE program, and $5.0 million for the development of full authority digital engine controls. 

In support of the Army’s technology objective to develop technologies for small JP–8 fueled engines for small unmanned aerial 

vehicles (UAV), the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research on heavy fuel UAV propulsion systems. 

Consistent with committee efforts to enhance systems engineering and prototyping capabilities, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for aviation weapon systems integration technologies and $3.75 million for an enterprise resource planning system for Army prototype integration efforts. 

The Army is currently investing in a number of capability-based 

operations and sustainment technologies that improve the operational availability of rotorcraft while reducing operating and support costs. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
49 

an additional $2.0 million for development of an inspection system 

for helicopter rotor blades and other composite components. 

Army weapons and munitions technology 

The budget request included $66.4 million in PE 63004A for advanced weapons and munitions technologies. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for efforts to reduce vehicle 

weight and improve fuel efficiency by developing low cost, lightweight, high strength metals such as castings, powder metal forgings, and titanium components. In support of Department of Defense efforts to increase manufacturing capabilities of advanced 

systems based on nanotechnology, the committee recommends an 

increase of $4.0 million for nanotechnology manufacturing research. 

Alternative energy research 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has begun 

to make significant efforts to improve energy efficiency of its installations, processes, platforms, and weapons systems. These investments have the promise of reducing Department costs, increasing 

defense capabilities, and reducing dependence on foreign sources of 

energy. 

In order to support these efforts and expand Department investments in next generation energy technologies, promote technology 

demonstration and prototyping of advance energy technology systems, and to enhance the Department’s role as an aggressive early 

adopter of novel energy technologies, the committee recommends a 

set of increases for competitively awarded energy research projects. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

63005A, $20.0 million in PE 62123N, $20.0 million in PE 63216F, 

and $20.0 million in PE 63712S for alternative energy research efforts. 

Robotic systems 

The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A for research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. The committee notes the increasing use and value of robotic systems on the 

battlefield to perform counter-improvised explosive device maneuvers; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and other tactical missions. The committee also notes that section 220 of the 

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) established a goal that by 2015, 

one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles acquired 

through the Army’s Future Combat Systems program will be unmanned. In support of these goals, the committee recommends an 

increase of $24.5 million for the development of robotics systems, 

vehicle autonomy, and advanced energy and propulsion systems for 

robotic vehicles. The committee also recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million in PE 63711D8Z for robotics operations training efforts. Finally, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62624A to continue the testing and development of 

weaponized unmanned ground vehicle platforms. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
50 

Tire development for joint light tactical vehicle program 

The budget request includes $181.6 million for combat vehicle 

and automotive advanced technology development. The committee 

recommends an increase of $1.5 million to continue development efforts for lighter, more agile tires. This project will also sustain a 

critical manufacturing capability in the defense industrial base, 

thereby providing the Department with competitive alternatives for 

critical components in price and supply. 

Vehicle energy and power programs 

The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A and $55.9 million in PE 62601A for combat vehicle research and development. The committee has been supportive of efforts to increase 

the energy efficiency and performance of combat and tactical vehicles through the application of advanced energy technologies. These 

technologies can also enable capabilities such as silent watch, extended range, and the provision of mobile electric power, all of 

which serve to enhance the operational capability of warfighters. 

To support the development of advanced battery technologies for 

vehicle systems, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 

million for battery research and demonstrations. 

The committee notes that the Army has been experimenting with 

a variety of hybrid systems to support Future Combat Systems, 

trucks, and light tactical vehicles. Consistent with the development 

of hybrid engines and systems to support military applications, the 

committee recommends an increase of $30.6 million for hybrid engines and components. 

In support of the development of advanced auxiliary power units 

(APU) to meet growing vehicle and equipment power requirements, 

the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the development of advanced APU systems. 

Water analysis technologies 

The budget request included $89.6 million in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive technologies. The committee notes that 

water represents a significant part of the sustainment requirement 

for deployed operations. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million for the development of water analysis systems to improve water quality monitoring for deployed forces. 

Training and simulation systems 

The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 63015A for next 

generation training and simulation systems. To enhance training 

for battlefield lifesaving skills, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for combat medic training systems. The committee notes that the Army’s Institute for Creative Technologies 

has developed a number of computer simulations that are being 

transitioned into Army training systems. To support these types of 

efforts, the committee recommends an additional $4.5 million for 

joint fires and effects trainer system enhancements. 

Mid-size unmanned ground vehicles 

The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63125A for technologies to combat terrorism. The Army has an established techVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
51 

nology objective to develop near autonomous unmanned systems for 

a variety of combat missions. In support of this effort, and to encourage systems engineering and prototyping activities, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for development of 

mid-size unmanned ground vehicles for counterterrorism missions. 

Aircraft survivability systems 

The budget request included $19.2 million in PE 63270A for electronic warfare technologies. The Army has established a technology 

objective to develop and integrate threat warning sensors and countermeasures to protect aircraft against small arms, rocket propelled 

grenades, man-portable air defense systems, and other threats. 

Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for development of laser technologies to improve 

aircraft survivability against missile threats. 

Advanced imaging technologies 

The budget request included $64.0 million in PE 63313A for advanced missile and rocket technologies. The Army has a technical 

objective to develop tactical information technologies for assured 

network operations and to enable battlefield information sharing. 

Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for imaging and networking research to enable rapid and precise target discrimination and identification. 

Bradley third generation forward looking infrared 

The budget request included $40.3 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision advanced technology, but provided no funds for third 

generation infrared technology. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63710A for Bradley infantry fighting 

vehicle third generation forward looking infrared technology development. 

Military engineering systems 

The budget request included $5.9 million in PE 63734A for advanced military engineering technologies. The committee recommends an additional $500,000 for permafrost research to enhance the understanding and implications of permafrost-related 

geophysical phenomenology on defense infrastructure and systems 

for current and future operations. 

Consistent with efforts to improve Department of Defense energy 

security and efficiency, the committee recommends an additional 

$8.0 million for development of solar cell technologies for use at 

military installations. 

Counter-mortar radar systems 

The budget request included $41.2 million in PE 63772A for advanced tactical computer science and sensor technologies. The National Research Council’s 2008 study on ‘‘Directed Energy Technology for Countering Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (CRAM)’’ 

highlights the potential need for the development of radar systems 

that can perform precise tracking of targets in all-weather conditions. In support of that need, the committee recommends an inVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
52 

crease of $4.0 million for research on advanced CRAM radar systems. 

Advanced environmental controls 

The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for advanced environmental control systems. The committee recommends 

an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A for the development of 

thermal management control systems that can support sensors and 

electronic systems that operate in the harsh environmental conditions required by missile defense systems. The committee notes 

that advanced environmental control systems have applicability to 

a variety of military systems that operate in harsh environments. 

Advanced electronics integration 

The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for advanced electronics integration. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63305A for advanced electronics integration to improve state-of-the-art weapon system electronics, with 

the goal of reducing the size, weight, and cost of electronic components, while also reducing hazardous materials used in such advanced electronics. This effort supports Army objectives for research, prototyping, testing, and production technologies that have 

potential to produce more efficient, high performance, less hazardous, and lower cost electronics. 

Adaptive robotic technology 

The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for development of adaptive robotic technology to improve integrated missile 

defense capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of 

$3.5 million in PE 63305A for development of adaptive robotic technology for Army missile defense and space mission requirements, 

including processes, tools, models, and simulations for improved integration of complex functions and operations. 

Joint future theater lift 

The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63801A for Aviation Advanced Development, but no funds to sustain the technology 

base and risk reduction activities for advanced tiltrotor platforms, 

particularly for the joint future theater lift (JFTL) mission. In addition, the Joint Advanced Concepts Office within the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), which has purview over all Department of Defense (DOD) vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) technology, has 

insufficient resources to conduct analyses, planning, and oversight. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is on 

the verge of losing an opportunity to exploit technology that could 

enable fundamentally new ground force operational concepts, and 

provide major energy efficiencies, a baseline for future VTOL aircraft, and major benefits to commercial aviation. 

The Army, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
53 

tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with private 

sector investments, have methodically matured technology for highperformance tiltrotor aircraft. In parallel, the Army, the Army 

Science Board, and the Defense Science Board, have examined the 

potential operational benefits and concepts of operation that advanced tiltrotor platforms could enable. The results of these activities indicate that a credible option exists to make large gains in effectiveness that the committee believes the Department must seriously address. 

These efforts have been building towards a decision point that 

DOD must, in any event, soon face: a long-term replacement for the 

C–130 theater lift capability. The 2008 Air Mobility Master Plan 

stated that planned initial operational capability for a C–130 replacement is 2021, and, to support that date, that a prototype 

would need to be flying by 2015. As far as the committee knows, 

the Department has budgeted no funds for accomplishing this objective. 

The Army and the Air Force are currently deadlocked over requirements for the JFTL platform. The Army is proposing requirements that only a high-performance VTOL/short take-off and 

vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft could meet; the Air Force is insisting on requirements that favor a fixed-wing jet. The committee 

notes that the Air Force touts that the C–17 is designed for the 

strategic delivery of troops and cargo directly to forward bases in 

the deployment area, operating through small, austere airfields. 

Extrapolating from this, the committee would expect the Air Force 

to embrace the direct delivery goal on the operational and tactical 

level. 

The Army wants a VTOL/STOVL transport with strategic range 

that could (1) carry all the Army’s ground vehicles except the M– 

1 tank; (2) support mounted vertical maneuver, including from sea 

basing; and (3) routinely deliver supplies and equipment directly to 

the point of need, instead of first to airfields and then via helicopter to forward locations. These missions could be conducted only 

with a heavy-lift VTOL/STOVL. Because of the ability to deliver 

cargo directly to the point of need, and the anticipated far greater 

efficiency of a tiltrotor as compared to helicopter transport, the 

Army projects that a tiltrotor JFTL would be far more efficient 

than a fixed-wing replacement for the C–130, providing major fuel 

savings, in addition to supporting revolutionary operational concepts. 

Proponents of advanced tiltrotor concepts in the Army, the Army 

Science Board, and the Defense Science Board argue also that it 

could serve as a flexible tanker able to operate from forward locations near the point of need, rather than from distant airbases, including picking up fuel at sea. Proponents foresee that a large 

tiltrotor would also have major benefits for commercial aviation in 

relieving congestion at airports. Scaled down in size, proponents 

believe that advanced tiltrotor platforms would provide tremendous 

gains in performance and efficiency over current helicopters, and 

could become the basis in the future for higher-performing unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The committee is aware that, for a number of years, the Army 

Science Board has recommended that the best way to resolve or 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
54 

prove whether these capabilities are realistic is to conduct a competitive prototyping effort. The Defense Science Board in 2008 (Report on DOD Energy Strategy) made a similar, strongly worded 

recommendation. 

The cost of such a prototyping effort would be substantial if it 

were conducted in the normal manner. Moreover, a plan to wait to 

conduct a competitive prototyping effort as part of an acquisition 

program would take years to begin, and presupposes that the current requirements dispute is resolved and that there is confidence 

in the cost and performance estimates of an advanced tiltrotor. 

This scenario seems unlikely, but possible, provided funds are 

forthcoming to sustain the industrial base in the interim. 

An alternative would be to initiate now a competitive prototype 

of an advanced tiltrotor independent of a program of record and a 

formally approved requirement in the most streamlined manner 

possible. This is the approach used successfully to prototype the 

aircraft that became the F–16 and F–18 fighters, which was relatively inexpensive. 

The committee is aware that DARPA offered to fund half the cost 

of this type of prototyping effort if a suitable partner would step 

forward. In addition to the Army and Marine Corps, potential participants include SOCOM and the Central Intelligence Agency, 

which could value, for a variety of sensitive missions, an efficient, 

large, and long-range aircraft that requires no runway. 

The committee directs that the USD (AT&L), in consultation 

with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, report to the 

congressional defense committees by December 1, 2009, on: 

1. Plans to sustain the tiltrotor risk reduction activities for 

a JFTL; 

2. How the Department intends to determine whether the 

revolutionary benefits of a heavy lift tiltrotor can be realized 

so that the Department may make an informed decision on the 

C–130 replacement program; and 

3. The merits of initiating a low-cost, highly streamlined 

competitive prototyping effort immediately, at an appropriate 

scale to cover all potential mission applications, to determine 

whether cost and performance goals can be met, to help define 

requirements, and to sustain the industrial base. 

The committee also recommends authorization of $58.5 million 

for Aviation Advanced Development, an increase of $50.0 million 

above the request, to sustain the tiltrotor industrial base through 

risk reduction activities. The committee recommends authorization 

of $3.0 million in PE 63200D8Z, Joint Advanced Concepts Office, 

for planning and oversight of VTOL programs and activities across 

the Department. 

Finally, the committee urges the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs, as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, 

to ask the combatant commanders (COCOM) to provide detailed 

views on the requirements for JFTL. The committee notes that section 105 of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–23) requires input from the COCOMs. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
55 

Logistics and engineer equipment-advanced development 

The budget request includes $32.1 million in PE 63804A for the 

ongoing development of the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV). The 

committee continues to support the Army and Marine Corps development of a next-generation family of light tactical vehicles. However, the committee understands that the Army and Marine Corps 

lack a long-term tactical wheeled vehicle strategy. Additionally, the 

committee is concerned about the uncertainty in the services’ plan 

to incorporate the sizable fleet of mine resistant ambush protected 

vehicles (MRAP) and the MRAP all-terrain-vehicle (M–ATV), which 

is still in development. Further, the committee believes that lessons learned from the eventual deployment of the M–ATV in Afghanistan will ultimately benefit the JLTV program and that JLTV 

should be more appropriately phased to incorporate these lessons. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million 

in funding for the JLTV program. This decrease is in addition to 

the committee’s $12.0 million reduction in the Marine Corps’ funding request for the JLTV program. 

Next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology 

The budget request included $74.8 million in PE 64601A for infantry support weapons. The committee notes that the Army is accelerating research and development of materials to increase personal protective equipment while reducing its weight. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 64601A for 

next-generation helmet ballistic materials technology. 

Type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber machine 

gun 

The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64601A for the 

development of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64601A to 

complete the type classification of the lightweight .50 caliber machine gun. 

Future combat system non-line of sight cannon 

The budget request included $58.2 million in PE 64647A for the 

contract termination liability associated with the cancellation of the 

Future Combat Systems (FCS) non-line of sight cannon (NLOS–C). 

The Department of Defense has directed the cancellation of the 

FCS Brigade Combat Team acquisition program and issued a stopwork order with respect to the NLOS–C pending resolution of statutory requirements for system fielding. The committee understands 

that as of June 2, 2009, $215.9 million in fiscal year 2009 research 

and development, procurement, and advanced procurement funds 

for FCS NLOS–C has not been executed. Final termination liability 

will not be negotiated until the program is formally cancelled; however, unexecuted funds currently available in the program appear 

adequate to cover the potential cost. Therefore, the funds requested 

for fiscal year 2010 are unjustified. 

The committee notes that the Army has been attempting to modernize its armored self-propelled howitzer fleet for several years. 

The cancellation of the NLOS–C, following cancellation of the Crusader program in 2002, means that the current self-propelled howVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
56 

itzer system, the M109A6 Paladin, may remain the workhorse of 

the Army’s armored artillery for several more years. 

In 2008, the Army started the Paladin Integration Management 

(PIM) program to modernize and upgrade the M109A6 Paladin. 

The PIM program is part of the Army’s overall heavy force management strategy to ensure the sustainability of current armored 

weapon systems capabilities. Planned Paladin upgrades to improve 

power train, suspension, power management, and electronic subsystems will support the modernization of fire control, navigation, 

communications, and gun drive systems. All these improvements 

will increase the Paladin’s performance and reliability, reduce life 

cycle costs, and address electronic obsolescence issues to meet the 

Army’s needs to 2050. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $58.2 mil- lion in PE 64660A and an increase of $58.2 million in PE 64854A 

to complete testing, continue cost reduction efforts, and accelerate 

low rate initial production of the PIM program. 

The committee further notes that the most mature prototype 

FCS NLOC–C technologies were those mission module components 

that were in some cases carried forward from the cancelled Crusader program. These weapons system technologies applied to 

M109A6 Paladin could have the potential to significantly improve 

the accuracy, reliability, and responsiveness of indirect fire support. The committee acknowledges that the Paladin PIM program 

provides critical capability updates for the M109A6 Paladin for today’s heavy force. At the same time, the committee notes the need 

for a networked next-generation self-propelled howitzer program 

that keeps pace with other Army weapons modernization programs. 

The committee therefore directs that the Army conduct an analysis of the technical feasibility, suitability, and affordability of upgrading the M109A6 Paladin with NLOS–C mission module components, such as fire control, munitions handling, and crew station 

capabilities. The Army shall provide the congressional defense committees with a report on the results of this analysis not later than 

September 30, 2009. The report required is not intended to delay 

the current PIM development or production schedule. 

Future combat system manned ground vehicles and common ground vehicle 

The budget request included $368.6 million in PE 64660A for the 

contract termination liability associated with the cancellation of the 

Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicle (MGV). 

The Department of Defense has directed the cancellation of the 

FCS Brigade Combat Team program and initiation of a new Army 

ground vehicle program. After re-evaluating requirements, technology, and approach, the Department of Defense will re-launch 

the Army’s combat vehicle modernization program, including a 

competitive process. 

The committee understands that as of June 2, 2009, $612.7 million in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 funds for FCS MGV has not been 

executed. Final termination liability has not been negotiated; however, unexecuted funds currently available in the program appear 

adequate to cover the potential cost. Therefore, the funds requested 

for fiscal year 2010 are unjustified. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
57 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $323.6 million in PE 64660A. 

The committee agrees with the Secretary of Defense’s assessment 

that the Army does need a next-generation ground combat vehicle 

modernization program and believes that the funds requested are 

better invested in related armored and tactical vehicle research 

and development activities. The committee recommends increases 

as follows for research and development activities to support Army 

ground vehicle modernization: 

[In millions of dollars] 

PE 62601A Army vehicle modernization research .............................................. $25.0 

PE 62618A Army vehicle survivability research ................................................. $25.0 

PE 63005A Army vehicle modernization technologies ........................................ $50.0 

PE 63653A Advanced tank armament systems .................................................. $50.0 

PE 64604A Medium tactical vehicle development .............................................. $10.0 

PE 64622A Heavy tactical vehicle development ................................................. $10.0 

PE 78045A Combat vehicle manufacturing technology ...................................... $30.0 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends increases 

for additional high priority Army vehicle research and development 

projects. The committee further recommends that all of the $45.0 million 

remaining in PE 64660A shall be available only for the research 

and development of active protection systems for light, medium, 

and heavy vehicles against the full range of threats, including rocket-propelled grenades, antitank guided missiles, kinetic energy 

rounds, and other threats. The committee believes that these funds 

should be used to leverage ongoing live fire testing activities previously mandated by Congress, to develop common active protection system (APS) components that can be used for a variety of vehicle types, and also to address specific APS vehicle integration 

issues. 

Urban training development 

The budget request included $30.2 million in PE 64715A for engineering development of non-system training devices. The committee recognizes the importance of developing up to date concepts 

and systems for training joint military operations in complex urban 

terrain that will increase unit effectiveness at reduced training 

costs. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

64715A for research projects leading to the development of concepts 

and systems for joint military training in urban terrain and cultural environments. 

Common guidance control module 

The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 64802A for development of precision guidance systems for artillery and mortar 

munitions. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million 

in PE 64802A to accelerate the development of a common guidance 

control module adapted to the precision guidance kit for 105mm 

howitzer munitions. 

Army test and evaluation programs 

The budget request included $51.8 million in PE 64759A for 

major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that 

this account funds the operations, sustainment, and modernization 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
58 

of Army test ranges. These ranges are critical to the delivery of 

operational systems to deployed forces since they provide the facilities and infrastructure for both the developmental and operational 

testing of defense systems to validate their operational effectiveness, suitability, and reliability. 

The committee notes that the Director of the Test Resource Management Center has not certified the Army’s fiscal year 2010 test 

budget after analyses indicated there was insufficient funding in 

this account to support the projected workload. The insufficient request in the fiscal year 2010 budget seems to indicate to the committee that the Army is willing to take risks with the effectiveness 

of both Army and other joint systems by providing inadequate testing resources. Risking inadequate testing resources can quickly 

lead to unknowable consequences for the cost and effectiveness of 

deployed systems as well as for the warfighters who depend on 

those systems. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

work more closely with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to ensure that future Army investments in test resources is sufficient to meet the projected workload 

requirements of the users of Army test facilities. The committee 

recommends an increase of $25.6 million in PE 65601A to correct 

the Army’s underfunding of this account. The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 65605A for the 

Department of Defense High Energy Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). 

The committee notes that in 2009, the Army will complete a significant upgrade of the facility by adding a solid-state laser source 

from the Joint High Power Solid State Laser program. Following 

these upgrades, the Army plans to use the facility beginning in 

2010 for tests associated with the High Energy Laser Technology 

Demonstrator program. To support these activities, the committee 

recommends an increase of $6.0 million for HELSTF. 

The committee notes that the Dugway Proving Grounds is the 

Department of Defense’s premier testing facility for chemical and 

biological defense systems. To support the development of these capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million 

for data fusion and test equipment improvements. 

To help address the integration of test and training activities between Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air 

Force Base, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

for tools for frequency management, airspace deconfliction, and 

real-time monitoring of ranges. 

3D woven preform technology for Army munitions 

The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 65805A for munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety, but provided no 

funds for 3D woven preform technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 65805A for 3D woven 

preform technology for Army munitions applications. 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted 

Sensor System 

The budget request included $360.1 million in PE 12419A for 

continued development of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS). The committee 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
59 

notes that the JLENS program schedule has slipped by 1 year 

since last year. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction 

of $20.0 million in PE 12419A for the JLENS program. 

TOW missile improvements 

The budget request included no funds in PE 23802A for other 

missile product improvements. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 23802A for TOW missile improvements 

to demonstrate a new propulsion system that will be insensitivemunitions compliant, reduces time of flight, and extends the missile’s maximum effective range beyond 5,000 meters. 

Joint tactical ground station 

The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 28053A for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the Joint Tactical 

Ground Station (JTAGS), and $6.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Army, line 70. The committee concludes that this program is an 

unnecessary expense since the Air Force provides the same missile 

warning data through the same principal data dissemination 

means—the Global Broadcast System. The Air Force also maintains survivable direct downlink and processing capabilities for assured injection into the broadcast. The committee recommends no 

funding in these accounts for JTAGS. 

Collection management tools development 

The budget request included $2.1 million in PE 33028A for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Security and Intelligence Activities, but no funds to sustain the program to develop 

and improve automated tools for tasking the all-source intelligence 

collection process on foreign missile threats, from the identification 

of collection requirements through optimization of collection system 

deployment. The committee recommends an authorization of $5.0 

million above the requested amount for this activity. 

A160 hummingbird 

The budget request included $202.5 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, in PE 35204A for Army Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), but no funds for the A160 Hummingbird. The A160 was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and has completed successful 

demonstrations. The A160 can carry a larger payload than the 

Predator with the same endurance and range, but, as a helicopter, 

is not dependent on any sort of prepared runway surface. The optimal speed rotor on the A160 makes it quiet and fuel efficient. 

There is every reason to believe that the A160, when matured 

through the accumulation of flight time, will be an excellent platform with huge potential across multiple mission areas. 

DARPA developed the A160 along with the Foliage Penetration 

Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar 

(FORESTER). This radar has a demonstrated capability to detect 

and track people walking beneath forest canopy at substantial 

range, but only when operated from a motionless platform like the 

A160. DARPA’s objective was to produce a system that could support special forces and conventional forces in conducting surveilVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
60 

lance in the forest and jungle, such as in U.S. Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM). 

Congress and DARPA have already funded the production of a 

significant number of A160 airframes, in various configurations, 

most of which are owned by U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM). SOCOM has budgeted significant funds for an upcoming 

4-month duration operational deployment to SOUTHCOM. However, SOCOM lacks the resources to sustain the factory and workforce that build the A160. Without additional funding by the start 

of fiscal year 2010, the factory will shut down, which could, practically speaking, mean the end of the program before users can determine fully its value. This situation is a reflection of DARPA’s recurring problem in transitioning even its most successful technology developments. 

The committee is dismayed at the prospect of the A160 program 

dying. It is very hard to conceive that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) would have no use for an endurance vertical take-off and 

landing (VTOL) UAV that requires no airfield and carries a large 

payload. Fortunately, the Army and the Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force have begun to take notice of 

this platform and recognize its potential. The Army G2 has indicated to the committee that the Army wants to deploy four A160 

aircraft to Afghanistan, to be flown with the FORESTER or another radar that is also designed to detect humans walking, only 

in the open rather than under foliage. This radar, called the vehicle 

and dismount exploitation radar (VADER), also was developed by 

DARPA and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat 

Organization. 

VADER does not have to be operated on a motionless platform 

to detect the movement of dismounted people, but platform speed 

affects performance. Above a certain platform speed, VADER cannot discriminate small target velocities from platform motion-induced clutter. The committee understands that the ISR Task Force 

intends to deploy VADER to Afghanistan as soon as possible. The 

VADER radar is too large for the Predator–1B and even the Predator–1C UAVs. The Task Force reluctantly decided to deploy on the 

Reaper UAV, and reportedly will seek funding in a reprogramming 

request. 

However, the Reaper minimum airspeed is at the limit of where 

VADER is calculated to be able to detect dismounts, and is therefore a poor candidate for an initial deployment, at least until more 

sophisticated versions of VADER are available. The A160, in contrast, would be an excellent match for VADER, as it is for FORESTER. The committee therefore urges DOD to alter any planned 

reprogramming request to direct funds to an A160 deployment, as 

outlined here. 

To support a sustained A160 deployment to Afghanistan, DOD 

would need to standardize existing SOCOM airframes, and manufacture new ones. These activities would sustain the factory and 

workforce through the end of fiscal year 2010 and, significantly, 

through the deployment to SOUTHCOM and part of the deployment to Afghanistan. The expectation is that, by that time, the 

A160 will have accumulated enough flight time to determine its viVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
61 

tality and utility. At that point, DOD could make a fully informed 

decision on transitioning the A160 to a program of record. 

The committee recommends $288.5 million, $86.0 million above 

the request, to support the sustained deployment of the A160 to Afghanistan with the FORESTER and VADER systems, including the 

production of five additional aircraft. 

Army manufacturing technologies 

The budget request included $68.5 million in PE 78045A for 

manufacturing technologies. Among the Army’s manufacturing 

technology program goals are the development of advanced manufacturing processes, enhancing quality while reducing cost, and 

transferring improved manufacturing technologies to the industrial 

base. In support of those goals, the committee recommends increases of $2.0 million for the development of software-based intelligent manufacturing techniques to reduce costs of systems production; $2.75 million for manufacturing metrology research; and $2.5 

million for repair technology development for aging and battledamaged equipment. 

Navy 

Navy basic research 

The budget request included $531.3 million for Navy basic research activities. The Navy’s survivability and self-defense science 

and technology focus area has a specific objective to develop advanced construction materials for survivable platforms. In support 

of that objective, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 

million in PE 61153N for blast and impact resistant structures, 

and an increase of $2.0 million for research on nanoscale materials. 

In support of efforts to train the next generation of defense scientists and engineers, the committee recommends an increase of 

$1.0 million in PE 61152N for education outreach programs. 

Energetics research 

The budget request included $59.8 million in PE 62114N for applied research on power projection technologies. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research on advanced energetic materials to support efforts to counter new types of asymmetric threats such as chemical-biological weapons as well as increasing capabilities to defeat deeply buried targets. 

Navy force protection research 

The budget request included $91.4 million in PE 62123N for applied research on force protection technologies. The Navy’s power, 

energy science, and technology focus area has a goal to develop efficient power conversion technologies with a wide range of energy 

sources to provide reliable power to a range of naval systems. To 

support this goal, the committee recommends increases of: $4.0 

million for research on integrated power systems for future platforms that have all-electric propulsion and weapon loads and $2.5 

million for research on reconfigurable shipboard power systems to 

increase system reliability and survivability. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
62 

The Navy’s survivability and self-defense science and technology 

focus area seeks to enhance force protection by using innovative 

sensors to help detect and defeat incoming attacks. In support of 

that initiative, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for the development of port security sensors for under-hull inspection of ships. 

Consistent with the Navy’s platform mobility technology objectives to develop new advanced platform designs supporting new directions in naval warfare, such as increased agility, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million for continued design and 

development of composite high-speed boats. 

Warfighter sustainment technologies 

The budget request included $104.2 million in PE 62236N for applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. 

In support of continuing Navy and Department of Defense initiatives to reduce corrosion cost, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 million for efforts on the development of sustainment 

and remanufacturing processes, asset health and logistics management techniques, and materials aging and corrosion abatement 

technologies. 

The Department of Defense anti-tamper program seeks to deter 

the reverse engineering and exploitation of critical technology in 

order to impede technology transfer, stop alteration of system capability, and prevent the development of countermeasures to U.S. systems. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 62236N for research on anti-reverse engineering nanodevices, as well as an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

65790D8Z for research on anti-tamper software. 

Advanced antenna technologies 

The budget request included $64.8 million in PE 62271N for applied research on electromagnetic systems. The Navy is seeking to 

reduce the number and size of antennae needed on ships but still 

maintain all necessary radar, communication, target tracking, and 

imaging capabilities. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for advanced digital radar systems. 

Advanced unmanned underwater vehicle research 

The budget request included $48.8 million in PE 62435N for applied research on ocean warfighting environments. The Navy’s platform mobility science and technology focus area includes the goal 

of development and delivery of system and equipment technologies 

to improve the performance of sea platforms to meet operational requirements. In support of this goal, the committee recommends an 

increase of $3.5 million for advanced unmanned undersea vehicle 

research. 

In order to support Navy efforts to enhance the understanding of 

optical propagation within challenging ocean environments in support of mine countermeasures and underwater autonomous network communications, the committee recommends an additional 

$2.0 million for research on extended range underwater imaging 

sensors and optical communications networks. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
63 

Undersea warfare systems 

The budget request included $55.7 million in PE 62747N for applied research on undersea warfare technologies. The committee 

notes that undersea unmanned gliders are being developed for use 

in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare missions. In support of those efforts, and to promote systems engineering and prototyping activities, the committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for littoral glider development. 

Low observable platforms 

The budget request included $40.9 million in PE 62782N for applied research on mine and expeditionary warfare capabilities. To 

support Navy science and ethnology objectives to develop multispectral low observable technologies to improve platform stealth, 

the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of electromagnetic signature assessment systems, and an 

increase of $750,000 in PE 62747N for quiet, compact power systems for naval platforms. 

Mobile intelligence and tracking systems 

The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63114N for advanced technologies for power projection. The Navy has a science 

and technology objective to develop data fusion and analysis technologies for actionable intelligence generation to defeat adaptive irregular threats in complex environments. In support of that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for research on data processing and fusion technologies to support multiple simultaneous detections, tracking, identification, and targeting of asymmetric and mobile threats in combat operations. 

Force protection advanced technology 

The budget request included $66.0 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology. This program addresses applied research associated with providing force protection capability 

for all naval platforms. 

The budget request included no funding to develop advanced 

coating process technologies for naval aviation platforms and components. The committee believes that advancements in technologies, such as thermal/plasma spraying and physical/chemical 

vapor deposition would be suitable for naval aviation components. 

For example, these spray and vapor deposition technologies have 

the potential to produce thermal barrier coatings using conventional ceramics/metals or even novel nano-materials that produce 

the same or better properties than currently available exotic materials, while achieving substantial savings. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for developing and testing the 

advanced coating process technologies in manufacturing and remanufacturing naval aviation components. 

The budget request included no funding for development of a 

lithium battery technology that could replace one of the three generators normally in operation or reserve aboard all large Navy 

ships. If lithium battery technology could be scaled up to a capacity 

of roughly 2.5 megawatts, such a battery would replace one of the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
64 

three ship service generators normally in operation or in reserve 

aboard all surface combatants. Such a battery system could provide 

a lower cost, higher quality source of electrical power that would 

replace redundant back-up power sources dedicated to subsystems 

throughout the ship. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million to enable the development of such lithium battery 

technology. The committee recommends a total authorization of $74.0 million 

in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology. 

High-integrity global positioning system 

The budget request included $59.1 million in PE 63235N for the 

High-Integrity Global Positioning System. The committee recommends no funding for this program. The committee notes that 

there is still no demonstrated user for the concept; moreover the 

cost of implementing the concept would be very high and require 

additional expensive user equipment. It is also not clear how the 

approach is being considered or how the required hardware modifications are being coordinated with the Joint Tactical Radio System open architecture approach. 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $107.4 million in PE 63640M for 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The most recent Marine Corps Science and Technology Strategic Plan identifies 

science and technology objectives related to development of high information content tactical sensors and urban-specific situational 

awareness capabilities. In support of those objectives, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million for the development 

of acoustic sensors systems for ground warfare missions. 

The Marine Corps Science and Technology Strategic Plan has a 

specific technology objective of developing advanced robotics systems for ground combat. In support of that objective, the committee 

recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of unmanned ground vehicle systems. 

Semi-submersible unmanned undersea vehicle 

The budget request included $116.1 million in PE 63207N for air/ 

ocean tactical applications. This program identifies new state-of-the 

art government and commercial technologies, transitions, demonstrates, and integrates them into Navy combat systems that determine the operational effects of the physical environment on the 

performance of combat forces and their new and emerging platforms, sensors, systems, and munitions. 

The budget request included no funding to develop a 

semisubmersible unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) that could be 

used to evaluate new sensor technologies and reduce risk of employing them in regular Navy applications. 

The committee understands that at least one such vehicle has 

been designed and completed development, and with modest additional funding, could complete launch and recovery validations and 

demonstrate UUV performance. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million in PE 

63207N for these purposes. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
65 

Sonobuoy wave energy module 

The budget request included $16.6 million in PE 63254N for antisubmarine warfare systems development, but included no funding 

for developing technology that would extend the in-water life of 

sonobuoys. One such technology would rely on wave energy to recharge batteries of operating sonobuoys. The committee understands that this technology could also yield the benefit of replacing 

existing batteries with lighter, and more environmentally friendly 

power sources. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63254N for maturing this wave energy application for sonobuoys. 

Shipboard system component development 

The budget request included $1.7 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development, but included no funding for 

developing a hybrid propulsion system for the DDG–51 Aegis destroyer. 

The committee believes that such a system installed on a DDG– 

51 would pay back the investment very quickly, as it would save 

potentially thousands of barrels of fuel per ship per year. The committee recommends an increase of $9.3 million to design, build and 

test a hybrid electric drive system for DDG–51 destroyers. 

The committee recommends a total authorization of $11.0 million 

in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development. 

Remote monitoring and troubleshooting project 

The budget request included $22.5 million in PE 63563N for ship 

concept advanced design activities, but included no funding for developing and implementing a remote monitoring and troubleshooting capability that would allow Navy engineers to provide 

global remote sustainment support to the fleet by remotely reading 

on-board sensors, monitoring shipboard system status, and providing expert advice to sailors as they maintain and repair ship 

systems. The committee believes that such a capability would yield 

savings, but, perhaps more importantly, lead to better readiness 

levels. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million 

in PE 63563N for developing and fielding this capability. 

Marine Corps ground combat/support systems 

The budget request includes $58.0 million in PE 63635N for the 

ongoing development of the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV). The 

committee continues to support the Army and Marine Corps development of a next generation family of light tactical vehicles. However, the committee understands that the Army and Marine Corps 

lack a long-term tactical wheeled vehicle strategy. Additionally, the 

committee is concerned about the uncertainty in the services’ plan 

to incorporate the sizable fleet of mine resistant ambush protected 

vehicles (MRAP) and the MRAP all-terrain-vehicle (M–ATV), which 

is still in development. Further, the committee believes that lessons learned from the eventual deployment of the M–ATV in Afghanistan will ultimately benefit the JLTV program and that JLTV 

should be more appropriately phased to incorporate these lessons. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
66 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million 

in funding for the JLTV program. This decrease is in addition to 

the committee’s $10.0 million reduction in the Army’s funding request for the JLTV program. 

Model-based management decision tools for ground vehicles 

The budget request included $73.8 million in PE 63635M for Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation, of Marine Corps 

Ground Combat and Support Systems, but no funds for modelbased management decision tools for ground vehicles. 

The development of modern ground combat vehicles is more difficult due to the growing complexity of vehicle armor, suspension, 

electronics, and weapons. This complexity increases development 

time and expense, including the time to test components and subsystems. Computer simulation technology, however, is now robust 

enough to accurately model and simulate the behavior of multiple 

components simultaneously (co-simulation). Full-vehicle co-simulation could lower costs, speed development, and improve designs. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of $78.3 

million, an increase of $4.5 million for computer simulation tools 

for ground vehicle design and evaluation. 

Navy energy program 

The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63724N for the 

Navy energy program. The Navy has indicated that the budget request is not funding any energy research programs outside those 

in science and technology accounts and was unable to provide additional justification for the projects to be funded with the money requested in this program element. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $8.476 million from this account to reflect 

a lack of coordination with other Navy energy research investments. 

Navy energy research 

The budget request included $8.5 million in PE 63724N for the 

Navy energy program. This program works to evaluate, adapt, and 

demonstrate energy related technologies for Navy aircraft and ship 

operations. In support of these goals the committee recommends an 

increase of $5.5 million for the development of fuel cell technologies 

for naval applications, and an additional $4.75 million for solar 

heat reflective materials to reduce cooling requirements. 

Optical interconnect 

The budget request included $4.3 million in PE 63739N for Navy 

logistics productivity initiatives, but included no funding to develop 

low cost, high quality fiber optic interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The Department of Defense continues to 

demand increasing data processing, communication, and system 

control capabilities. The next-generation data and communication 

management systems needed for weapons systems will depend 

upon tightly integrated optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect. This solution optimizes space utilization while 

achieving high bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
67 

and security. The Navy has requirements for next-generation optical interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems, 

and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

to develop this important technology. 

Radio frequency identification technology program 

The budget request included $4.3 million in PE 63739N for Navy 

logistics productivity initiatives, but included no funding to develop 

next-generation logistics management models that would allow the 

Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense to exploit 

the full potential of radio frequency identification (RFID) systems. 

The Department of Defense continues to field RFID systems, but 

has yet to exploit the full potential of the information available 

from RFID systems and the contribution such information could 

make to improving logistics management information systems. The 

committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million to improve the 

decision support capability of existing logistics models and develop 

better algorithms for these models. 

Mobile maritime sensor development 

The budget request included $190.0 million in PE 64501N for development efforts in support of a next-generation cruiser, CG(X). 

CG(X) is planned to be the replacement for the CG–47 class cruiser, with primary missions including air and missile defense. The 

Navy’s last long-range shipbuilding plan proposed to procure the 

first ship of the CG(X) program in 2011. That schedule was clearly 

too optimistic. 

Part of the delay came from questions about the CG(X) Analysis 

of Alternatives (AoA), called the Maritime Air and Missile Defense 

of Joint Forces (MAMDJF) AoA. One problem has been that demanding threat requirements have led to very demanding sensor 

requirements, some of which could only be fit on a cruiser-size vessel by achieving major technology breakthroughs. 

Another cause of the delay was that, as the committee understands it, the Secretary of the Navy was asking questions about potential contributions of off-board, networked sensors and why the 

MAMDJF vessel had to be self-sufficient for target acquisition and 

tracking. 

The committee recognizes that there are at least two other platforms within DOD inventories that could provide the basis for developing a more robust off-board sensor augmentation. Such an incremental development approach might not require that the Navy 

make such heroic technology improvements in surface combatant 

radar technology. These are the Navy’s own programs to develop a 

Cobra Judy replacement vessel, and the Missile Defense Agency’s 

Sea-Based X-Band radar. 

A mobile maritime sensor could improve upon the performance 

of either of these radars by making more modest technology improvements that could provide requisite capability for radars that 

would be less risky, cheaper to acquire and operate, and potentially 

available sooner than sensors that must provide equivalent performance from within the relatively constrained confines of a surface combatant. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
68 

The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to: (1) 

develop a radar architecture that would provide full field of view; 

(2) design of a partial array prototype; (3) develop, build, and test 

components of such an array; and (4) fabricate and test a partial 

array prototype. Information resulting from such an effort could 

provide valuable information upon which to base informed decisions about the best way to support the maritime air and missile 

defense mission. 

Submarine communications at speed and depth 

The budget request included $122.7 million in PE 64503N, in- cluding $16.2 million to continue development of capabilities to 

communicate with submarines when they are operating at normal 

depths and speeds. Such communications capability would permit 

submarines to provide better support to other forces in a battle 

group, while allowing submarines to maintain their stealthy posture. 

The Navy has embarked on a program to develop this capability 

that is divided into two parts: Increment 1 and Increment 2. The 

Increment 1 program will bring some currently available, expendable buoy technologies to the fleet over the next 2 years. 

The Navy plans to begin the Increment 2 program in fiscal year 

2011. This program will include submarine-towed buoy systems to 

provide more persistent connectivity to submarines operating below 

periscope depth. However, the committee does not believe that the 

Navy has provided sufficient funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget 

request to develop the advanced technologies required in order to 

implement this next phase of the program. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to develop 

these technologies. 

Mold-in-place coating development 

The budget request included $154.8 million in PE 64558N to support design and development activities for submarines, but included no funding for developing a mold-in-place technology for installing or restoring advance submarine hull coatings. Since current techniques for installing these coatings are expensive and 

manpower intensive, having a process available that would reduce 

the time and effort to install or replace these coatings would yield 

savings to the Navy. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to develop 

this capability. 

New design SSN 

The budget request included $154.8 million in PE 64558N to support design and development activities for submarines, but included no funding for developing a common command and control 

module for application to Virginia-class submarines or a potential 

Trident replacement program. 

The committee understands that the Navy could design a new 

command and control module for submarines that would enable 

rapid reconfiguration of mission equipment in these spaces, reduce 

the demands on watch standers, and reduce the total ownership 

costs to the Navy for supporting disparate command and control 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
69 

configurations. Starting such a design now would permit the Navy 

to take best advantage of potential savings from achieving a common configuration in the fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million 

in PE 64558N to support these development activities. 

Submarine tactical warfare system 

The budget request included $59.7 million in PE 64562N for developing enhancements to submarine combat control systems. 

The budget request included no funding for developing an artificial intelligence-based combat systems kernel. Such a kernel would 

use expert systems, advanced signal and data processing, and mission-focused human systems integration to introduce much higher 

levels of automation that would optimize manning and increase 

command decision and combat system performance. The committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million to support this development. 

The budget request included no funding for developing a weapon 

acquisition and firing system (WAFS). Today’s weapons systems 

are complex and require many manual procedures using reference 

documents to determine weapon settings and tactics while ensuring 

the safety of ships by employing proper weapon safety settings. 

This cumbersome process is too slow and error prone in many close 

combat situations. The WAFS provides a data fusion capability 

that can automatically develop an accurate target solution based on 

acoustic and non-acoustic sensors, eliminating the need for reference documents and lowering ship manning requirements. The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to initiate research and development efforts as well as allowing for at-sea testing and implementation of real-time algorithms and associated inboard electronics necessary for installing WAFS on legacy and future classes of submarines. 

The budget request included no funding for developing a submarine environment for evaluation and development. The Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center has created a futuristic submarine attack center to evaluate new command decision aids in a realistic 

environment. This facility has provided a low-cost, easily accessible 

testbed for small businesses, academia, and production system developers to create and test innovative technologies without incurring the expense of creating their own test facility. This has led to 

getting better technology to the fleet more quickly. The committee 

recommends an increase of $4.0 million to expand this activity to 

improve the ability to perform proof of concept testing and concept 

of operations testing with fleet sailors using current submarines 

systems augmented by new technologies. 

The committee recommends a total increase of $13.0 million in 

PE 64562N for the submarine tactical warfare system programs. 

Automated fiber optic manufacturing 

The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 64567N for ship 

contract design, but included no funding to build on an Office of 

Naval Research initiative to provide automated manufacturing for 

military-grade fiber optic assemblies for aircraft carriers and other 

naval vessels. The committee believes that such an activity could: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
70 

(1) improve the quality, reliability, and cost of such assemblies; and 

(2) facilitate field installation and maintenance of such systems for 

vessels while they are deployed. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to continue this development. 

Autonomous unmanned surface vehicle 

The budget request included $35.5 million in PE 64755N for ship 

self-defense (detect and control) projects, but included no funding 

for the autonomous unmanned surface vehicle (AUSV) program. 

The AUSV program supports the U.S. Navy’s anti-terrorism, force 

protection, and homeland defense missions. The AUSV can protect 

commercial harbors, coastal facilities such as commercial and military airports and nuclear power plants, inland waterways, and 

large lakes. The vessel will utilize a variety of advanced sensing 

and perimeter monitoring equipment for surveillance and detection 

of targets of interest. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million to continue this development. 

Next-generation Phalanx 

The budget request included $34.2 million in PE 64756N for ship 

self-defense (hard kill), but included no funding for next-generation 

Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the Navy’s principal closein weapon system for ship self-defense, and has proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against emerging air and surface 

target sets. The continually evolving nature of the threat, unique 

challenges posed by operations in the littorals, increased emphasis 

on single ship probability of raid annihilation, and fact of life technology obsolescence require a continued development effort to sustain the superior performance of this critical ship self-defense system. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 

64756N for the continued development of the next-generation Phalanx. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system 

The budget request included $88.9 million for ship self-defense 

soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $4.8 million 

for various development activities related to the NULKA anti-ship 

missile decoy system. 

The Navy has identified a series of development activities associated with the NULKA system that are required to understand and 

deal with emerging threats: 

(1) continue to pace anti-ship cruise missile threats with long 

pulse capability by incorporating radio frequency and digital 

design enhancements; 

(2) design an architecture that will ensure flawless operation 

with the SPY–3 multi-function radar (MFR); 

(3) integrate into NULKA into the Navy’s Aegis weapon control system open architecture; and 

(4) provide shipboard test and trial support. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the 

NULKA development program to continue these efforts. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
71 

Navy medical research 

The budget request included $9.9 million in PE 64771N for medical systems development. To support efforts to protect deployed 

forces from infectious diseases, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research on dengue fever vaccines. To 

support efforts to treat injured service members, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on composite tissue transplantation techniques for treatment of traumatic injuries, 

an additional $3.0 million for the development of advanced orthopedic surgical instrumentation, and an additional $2.0 million for 

the development of custom body part and prosthetic implants. 

Navy information technology programs 

The budget request included $69.0 million in PE 65013N for information technology development. To support initiatives to improve network centric operations, data fusion, and human systems 

interfaces, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

for the development of integrated network-centric technology systems, and an increase of $7.0 million for information systems research and technology. 

Navy test and evaluation programs 

The budget request included $79.6 million in PE 64759N for 

major test and evaluation investment. To support effective interoperability testing and evaluation of complex, emerging joint systems, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 

aviation enterprise interoperability upgrades. 

Advanced linear accelerator facility 

The budget request included $75.0 million in PE 11221N, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but included no funding for the Crane linear accelerator facility (LINAC). 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million for the 

LINAC to simulate the high radiation environment in space. The 

committee notes that this will complete the construction of the 

LINAC facility. The committee directs the Navy to develop and use 

the additional funds in conjunction with the Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight Council. 

Expandable rigid wall composite shelter 

The budget request included $120.4 million in PE 26623M for 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Marine Corps 

Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems. Current rigid wall shelters do not have ballistic protection, cannot carry loads such as 

sandbags on the roof, are poorly insulated, are subject to corrosion, 

and cannot be efficiently stacked on container ships. New carbon 

fiber hybrid composite technology will provide lightweight, rugged, 

thermally efficient, and electromagnetic interference-hardened 

shelters for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an authorization of $1.3 million for this initiative. 

Marine personnel carrier support system 

The budget request included $120.4 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, in PE 26623M for Marine Corps 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
72 

Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems, but no funds to initiate 

the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) Design for Supportability System. This system, initiated during the program’s design phase, will 

reduce management and maintenance costs throughout the program’s life cycle using modern modeling and collaborative software 

technology. The committee recommends an authorization of $123.4 

million, an increase of $3.0 million above the request. 

Ultrasonic consolidation for smart armor applications 

The budget request included $120.4 million in PE 26623M, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, for Marine 

Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems, but insufficient 

funds to complete development of Ultrasonic Consolidation for 

Armor Applications technology. 

Ultrasonic consolidation is a low-temperature process that enables the production of laminates of dissimilar metals to achieve 

properties not possible with conventional casting and welding techniques. This process can be used to fashion titanium aluminide, a 

lighter, cheaper, and more effective armor. The committee recommends authorization of $124.3 million, $3.9 

million above the request, to complete development of this technology. 

High performance capabilities for military vehicles 

The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 26624M for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for Marine Corps Combat Services Support, but no funds for the high performance capabilities for military vehicles project. This project is dedicated to applying the best practices of the motorsports industry to military vehicles, including engineering expertise, equipment, and technology. 

The committee recommends authorization of $18.1 million, $1.0 

million above the request for this project. 

Mobile User Objective System 

The Navy is responsible for maintaining narrow band ultra-high 

frequency (UHF) satellite communications capability. The current 

on-orbit capability is provided through a combination of leased satellite capability, the Ultra-high frequency follow-on (UFO) satellites, the last of which was launched in 2003, and two previous 

generation UHF satellites, which have long surpassed their design 

lives. Several of the UFO satellites have failed early and several 

others are single string satellites. As a result, the UHF constellation is very fragile. If all the satellites continue to operate with no 

further failures the Navy expects to see the UHF constellation degrade to unacceptable levels in May 2010. The first Mobile User 

Objective System (MUOS), the next-generation UHF satellite, is already 11 months behind schedule and continues to have technical 

problems. 

The committee continues to believe that the Navy should initiate 

a UHF backup capability through leased or hosted payload options. 

The committee understands that $32.0 million remains from the 

brief but cancelled prior effort to look at this option. The committee 

recommends a decrease in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 303109N line 192 of $32.0 million and an inVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
73 

crease of $32.0 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy, line 18, for 

a small UHF payload, of eight or fewer channels, on an existing 

small satellite bus. The committee directs the Navy to explore 

using a competition for a fixed price contract for additional UHF 

capability. In reviewing this option the Navy should look at utilizing the Operationally Responsive Space Office as a possible option for managing the augmentation, if the Navy believes that augmentation efforts will take program office focus away from the 

MUOS program. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report back 

to the congressional defense committees no later than January 1, 

2010, with the plans for UHF augmentation and constellation 

sustainment. 

Navy manufacturing technology 

The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 78011N for 

Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes 

that the Defense Science Board has recommended that investments 

in the manufacturing technology program be increased to a level of 

1 percent of the total research, development, test, and evaluation 

budget. The Board also found that the manufacturing technology 

program has invested in efforts that have reduced systems cost and 

improved systems performance. Consistent with those recommendations and findings, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for integrated manufacturing enterprise development to streamline manufacturing techniques, business practices, and practices to reduce costs of Navy platforms, and an additional $2.5 million for development of advanced materials processing technologies and lower cost repair methods for a variety of 

sea and air systems. 

National Shipbuilding Research Program-Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise 

The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research Program— 

Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP–ASE) is a collaborative 

effort between the Navy and industry which has yielded significant 

productivity improvements for Navy ship construction and repair. 

Under this program the Navy provides funding that is matched 

and exceeded by industry investment. Using this approach, the 

Navy has achieved a high return on investment by providing nearterm savings and avoiding significant future costs. The committee 

believes that continuation of the NSRP–ASE effort is a vital element of the overarching objective of improving the affordability of 

naval warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative 

shipbuilding industrial base. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

78730N for the NSRP–ASE. The committee expects that the Navy 

will allocate funds directly to this program in future budget requests. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
74 

Air Force 

Air Force basic research 

The budget request included $321.0 million in PE 61102F for defense research sciences activities. To support efforts in the development of next generation energy sources for military applications, 

the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for research 

supporting liquid fuel production processes and an additional $1.5 

million for research on wireless beamed power systems. 

The National Research Council’s 2006 study on ‘‘Basic Research 

in Information Science and Technology for Air Force Needs’’ recommended that the Air Force invest in research in information security ‘‘in support of the goal of measurable, available, secure, 

trustworthy, and sustainable network-enabled systems.’’ Consistent 

with that recommendation the committee recommends increases of: 

$4.0 million for development of cyber security related educational 

programs; $4.0 million for research on security for critical and vulnerable control networks; and $2.0 million for software engineering 

research to develop secure embedded software systems. 

The report also highlighted the significant challenges that the 

Air Force will face in managing ever-larger volumes of data. To 

support the development of enhanced information management capabilities, the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million for 

informatics research. 

Finally, consistent with the committee’s efforts to enhance systems engineering capabilities in the Department of Defense, the 

committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on 

integrated design and manufacturing technologies and systems. 

Air Force materials research 

The budget request included $128.0 million in PE 62102F for applied materials research. The committee notes that advanced tactical aircraft such as the F–22 and F–35 are facing critical thermal 

management issues which are forcing operational adjustments and 

potentially costly design and engineering changes. To help address 

these issues, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million 

for research on advanced thermal management structures. 

The Air Force Research Laboratory has found that 3.9 percent 

(or nearly $1.5 billion) of the Air Force’s fiscal year 2004 operations 

and maintenance budget went toward addressing the costs of corrosion on Air Force platforms and weapon systems. To address corrosion issues in the Air Force, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 62102F for corrosion protection materials, 

and $1.0 million to address corrosion issues in light alloy aerospace 

and automotive parts. 

The Air Force’s Energy Program Policy has a stated objective of 

developing renewable resources on Air Force bases. In support of 

that objective, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for efforts to design, implement, and test systems and processes capable of producing renewable energy at large scales for 

military installations, and an additional $4.0 million for research 

to refine, as well as develop novel, energy bioconversion technologies to support defense needs. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
75 

The committee notes that the 2003 National Research Council 

study ‘‘Materials Research to Meet 21st Century Defense Needs’’ 

identified a number of high priority research areas in advanced 

materials in order to address defense requirements. The study recommended investing in technologies that would integrate nondestructive inspection and evaluation into the original design of 

both materials and structures. Consistent with this recommendation, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the 

development of health monitoring sensors for aerospace components. The National Research Council recommended that the Department of Defense ‘‘make investments in research leading to new 

strategies for the processing, manufacture, inspection, and maintenance of materials and systems.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for research on intelligent 

manufacturing models, analyses, and controls to develop the next 

generation of manufacturing processes and systems. 

Finally, the committee recommends an additional $2.75 million 

for the development of infrared laser media materials to support 

the development of laser communications, countermeasure, and 

sensing systems. 

Aerospace vehicle technologies 

The budget request included $127.1 million in PE 62201F for 

aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for unmanned aerial system (UAS) collaboration technologies to support the development of advanced UAS and 

enhance the ability to integrate UAS pilots, sensor operators, and 

information analysts, as well as to better coordinate and collaborate their activities. 

Air Force propulsion research 

The budget request included $196.5 million in PE 62203F for applied research in aerospace propulsion. Advanced aircraft engines 

require high reliability components that survive high vibrations, 

temperature, and speeds. In support of component development for 

the F–35, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

for high speed bearing research. 

In support of efforts to meet onboard electrical power requirements of engines and airborne weapon systems, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for materials research and development via prototype fabrication and developmental testing of 

novel electric power technologies for propulsion applications. The 

committee also recommends an additional $7.0 million for the development of lithium ion batteries for aviation applications. 

To support efforts to develop hypersonics technology for missile, 

aircraft, and space access missions, the committee recommends an 

additional $3.5 million for scramjet research. 

Finally, to support efforts to reduce operating temperatures of 

turbine engines and improve their efficiency, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the development of thermally efficient engine fuel pumping systems. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
76 

Reconfigurable electronics and software 

The budget request included $104.1 million in PE 62601F for 

space technologies. The Department of Defense’s January 2007 ‘‘Response to Findings and Recommendations of the Defense Science 

Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply’’ highlighted the Department’s need for microelectronic systems, local 

field programmable gate arrays, with functions that could be 

changed to support different types of systems. In support of meeting that need, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on reconfigurable electronics. The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 

PE 63203F for the development of secure reconfigurable computing 

systems that would support development of protection technologies 

with sensors to meet the requirement for critical weapon systems 

technology to be tamperproof and uncompromised. 

Seismic research program 

The budget request included $104.1 million in PE 62601F for space technologies. The committee recommends an additional $7.5 

million for the Air Force seismic research program. The committee 

notes that this program has and will continue to enable the United 

States to monitor compliance with the current moratorium on nuclear testing. 

Chemical laser research 

The committee notes that the 2008 Air Force Scientific Advisory 

Board study on advanced tactical lasers highlighted the fact that 

chemical lasers would be unsuitable for tactical applications ‘‘due 

to the atmospheric propagation of its operational wavelength, its 

weight and volume, its logistical requirements, and its limited magazine.’’ The committee notes that the Department of Defense is 

moving towards the development and eventual fielding of solid 

state, fiber, and free electron lasers for a variety of missions that 

require high energy lasers, but has no such similar plans for chemical lasers. Therefore the committee recommends a reduction of 

$5.75 million in PE 62605F and $6.1 million in PE 62890F for activities related to chemical laser research and development. 

High energy laser research 

The budget request included $52.8 million in PE 62890F for applied research on high energy lasers. The Department of Defense’s 

report ‘‘Adaptive Optics for Military Applications: Laser Weapons 

and Space Surveillance’’ identified the development of deformable 

mirrors as a technical challenge to achieving laser weapon systems. 

The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million to support 

research on advanced deformable mirrors for high energy laser 

weapons systems. 

Air Force advanced materials research 

The budget request included $37.9 million in PE 63112F for the 

development of advanced materials for weapon systems. The committee recommends an additional $7.0 million to support the Metals Affordability Initiative, a joint government and industry consortium aimed at strengthening the metals industrial base through 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
77 

collaborative technology development and transition projects. The 

overall program helps improve current processing technologies and 

develop novel techniques for primary metal production, part manufacturing, and weapon system support. 

To support Air Force efforts to develop cheaper, alternative 

sources of aviation fuel, the committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million for sewage-derived biofuels research. Finally, to support efforts to improve the readiness and maintainability of airframes, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for 

research on nondestructive testing technologies. 

Air Force advanced propulsion systems 

The budget request included $175.7 million in PE 63126F for 

aerospace propulsion and power technology. To support efforts 

under the High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstrator project as 

part of the Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine program, 

the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to develop 

supersonic turbine engines that can support the development of a 

long-range high-speed strike missile. The committee notes that the 

Department of Defense is continuing its investments in the development of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capabilities for intelligence, strike, logistics, and other missions. In support of those efforts, the committee recommends an additional $3.5 million for the 

development of scalable UAV engines. 

Finally, to support continued development of high-temperature 

power electronics to meet critical needs of the Joint Strike Fighter 

and other aircraft platform systems, the committee recommends an 

increase of $6.0 million for research on silicon carbide electronics. 

Air Force manufacturing technology 

The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 63680F for the 

Air Force manufacturing technology program. The committee recommends an additional $3.25 million for research on casting technology to support efforts to provide the Department of Defense an 

integrated approach to metal castings used in defense systems to 

improve component performance and affordability. 

Optical interconnect technologies 

The budget request included $39.7 million in PE 63788F for development and demonstration of battlespace knowledge technologies. The Defense Research and Engineering’s 2007 strategic 

plan highlights networks and communications, including technologies to address airborne networks, as an enabling technology 

that should receive the highest level of corporate attention and coordination. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an 

additional $2.5 million for development of optical interconnects to 

support data communications onboard unmanned aircraft systems 

and satellites. 

Space Protection Program 

The budget request included $97.7 million for Space Control 

Technology in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 

Force, in line 40 including $6.5 million for the Space Protection 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
78 

Program (SPP). The committee recommends an additional $6.5 million for the SPP. 

Improving space situational awareness and protecting space assets is a high priority for the intelligence community and the Department of Defense as well as for the civilian community. A recent 

‘‘day without space’’ exercise made clear that not only military systems but a broad array of civilian systems are dependent on military and intelligence space systems. Even such simple tasks such 

as getting money from an ATM or using a credit card to fill up a 

gas tank become impossible without space assets. 

The SPP is a joint Air Force-National Reconnaissance Office program to bring in-depth analytic capacity to the problem of protecting space assets from natural occurring events, accidental 

events, and intentional actions of adversaries. The committee supports this collaborative approach to protect U.S. space interests and 

commends the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office 

(NRO) for establishing this unique effort. Having established this 

needed effort the committee expects both the Air Force and the 

NRO to support the effort. 

The committee expects the SPP to execute an integrated strategy 

to review threats identified by the intelligence community to ascertain risks and vulnerabilities to space capabilities and then recommend solutions leading to comprehensive space protection capabilities. Specifically, the SPP office should focus on developing 

space protection architectures, identifying national capabilities and 

interdependencies, delivering tailored decision aids to operations 

centers, develop methodologies to address vulnerabilities in multiple orbit regimes, integrate cyber risks and threats into the National Infrastructure Protection Framework, and continue with the 

specific tasks currently assigned. 

Space situational awareness 

The budget request included $97.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 63438F for 

Space Control Technology but no funds to integrate data from the 

Missile Defense X-band radar on the Sea-based X-band platform to 

integrate into the space surveillance network. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to develop a prototype to import this sensor capability into the space surveillance network. 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Demonstration/Validation 

The budget request included $66.1 million for Intercontinental 

Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Demonstration Validation in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63851F line 46. 

The committee notes that the various ICBM modernization programs will be coming to a close and will need to focus on 

sustainment. ICBM Demonstration Validation is focused on future 

ICBM concepts some of which, such as guidance systems, could be 

common to the Air Force and the Navy. The committee notes that 

the Navy is working on common concepts and urges the two services to work together to determine the full range of common applications for ballistic missile sustainment and modernization if needed. As a result the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
79 

Operationally Responsive Space 

The budget request included $112.9 million for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) in Air Force Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation PE 64857 including $31.9 million for ORS–1, a 

small satellite being built at the request of U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) to satisfy the Command’s urgent need number 3. The 

budget request does not keep the manufacture of the ORS–1 on 

schedule to meet the CENTCOM schedule. The committee notes 

that the Air Force intends to reprogram some additional funds to 

support ORS–1 but more is needed. The committee recommends an 

additional $40.0 million for ORS–1. 

On May 18, 2009, the ORS Office successfully launched another 

small satellite, which is in the process of completing its on-orbit 

check out. The committee expects the ORS Office to keep it informed as to the progress and operational utility of this most recent satellite. 

ORS continues to make progress in all of its three tiers and in 

continuing to assess the value of small satellites to the warfighter, 

including the ability to rapidly configure and launch small satellites to meet need not otherwise met by airborne platforms. One 

of the ORS efforts could have applicability to the general space 

community approach to command satellites thorough multi-purpose 

systems rather than stove-piped ground systems. 

The committee commends the ORS Office and other agencies and 

military services for participating in this innovative approach to 

space. The committee is concerned, however, that the ORS Office 

has not been able to take full advantage of various streamlined acquisition approaches and directs the Air Force to assist ORS in 

identifying areas where improvement is needed and to grant ORS 

the necessary authorities. ORS has been ably supported in its acquisition by the Air Force Space Development and Test Wing and 

the committee believes that this is a productive partnership. 

One of the areas that the ORS Office has not focused on is nextgeneration launch capabilities. At the present there is adequate 

launch capability but it is expensive. The committee is aware of a 

different approach to designing launch vehicles that might reduce 

in the long run the cost of launch, and that might be suitable for 

small and medium (Delta II) class and below launch. The committee recommends $15.0 million for the radially segmented launch 

vehicle for ORS and the Space Test Program to continue concept 

development and determine the technical validity of the approach. 

Small imaging satellite competitive prototyping 

The budget request included $112.9 million in PE 64857F for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the Operationally 

Responsive Space (ORS) program. Elsewhere in this report, the 

committee recommends that the Department of Defense acquire the 

equivalent of one 1.5-meter commercial-class electro-optical imaging satellite, along with acquisition of the equivalent of one additional 1.1-meter commercial imaging satellite. These actions are 

recommended to mitigate risks in the collection capabilities of the 

intelligence community, to enhance the availability and utility of 

unclassified imagery for the warfighter, to increase the frequency 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
80 

of satellite coverage, and to also enhance the survivability of spacebased imaging in wartime. 

For the longer-term, however, the committee believes the time 

has come to try a different approach to moderate-resolution imagery collection from space. The committee is persuaded that the 

technology exists to build very small and very inexpensive medium 

resolution (approximately .5 meter ground resolution) imaging satellites. A large constellation of very small satellites would provide 

frequent revisit, inherent survivability, graceful degradation, 

broad-area coverage and faster upgrades. The costs should not exceed $100.0 million per satellite, including launch, with the ultimate goal being fixed pricing. If achievable, this concept would 

open up important new opportunities for the commercial data providers and government consumers alike. 

The committee believes that the time is right to establish a competitive prototyping program to test the industry’s cost claims and 

to demonstrate performance levels. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $227.9 million, $115.0 

million above the request, to initiate a competitive proof-of-concept 

demonstration involving at least two credible industry teams. The 

committee expects that the Department of Defense will require 

each vendor to deliver at least two satellites, with a goal of spacecraft in orbit within 36 months of award. The satellites should be 

limited to a small mass and volume, with low development and recurring costs. The program should be guided by the Joint Staff, 

U.S. Strategic Command, the Air Force A2, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

The budget request includes $396.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF), PE 35178F for the 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite system (NPOESS). As a result of a recent review, the Department of 

Defense has determined that the program is not adequately funded 

in fiscal year 2010. The committee recommends an additional $80.0 

million for NPOESS. 

Internet routing in space 

The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, to support the demonstration, 

evaluation, and use of a commercial Internet Router in Space 

(IRIS) for military communications on a commercial satellite for 1 

year. The IRIS program, a joint concept technology demonstrator 

(JCTD) sponsored by U.S. Strategic Command, was funded as a 

demonstration project and will be launched later this year. Funding for the JCTD, however, only supports a 3 month demonstration 

of the capability. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 

million in PE 604xxxF to continue the demonstration and to provide operational capability for an additional year. To address this 

and other new communications technologies for military communications satellites the committee recommends a new program element (PE) designed to reduce technological risk and mature techVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
81 

nologies for potential future applications. This PE is discussed 

more fully elsewhere in this report. 

The committee notes that IRIS is not useful for protected, secure, 

survivable communications such as had been envisioned for the 

transformational communications satellite program because the 

router is not designed to be radiation hardened. On the other hand, 

the router could be useful for other satellite applications, such as 

the Wide-band Global System (WGS) that do not have a requirement for radiation hardening. 

Next-generation military satellite communications 

The budget request included no funds in Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDTEF), for next-generation 

military satellite communications to identify technologies that 

could be used on future military communications satellites. When 

the transformational communications satellite (T-Sat) was cancelled, several risk reduction efforts that could have application on 

future satellites were also cancelled. In addition, work on military 

unique radiation hardening requirements was also cancelled. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in a new 

program element, PE 604xxxF. This new PE would be created to 

explore communications technologies that could be utilized on future blocks of current communications satellite or eventually on 

next-generation communications satellite. This program would be 

similar in concept to the Third Generation Infrared Satellite System (3GIRS), which is conducting risk reduction efforts for nextgeneration overhead persistent infrared technologies. These risk reduction efforts should include continued efforts to reduce the cost, 

weight, and complexity of current radiation hardening techniques. 

One of the many problems with the T-Sat program was that it 

was started with very immature technologies. In the future if there 

are to be new or evolved communications satellites, the committee 

wants to ensure that the technologies are sufficiently mature to be 

fielded with low cost and schedule risk. 

B–1B bomber active electronically scanned array radar 

The budget request included no funds in Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEF) in PE 64226F for the B– 

1B bomber. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

to design, install, and test an active electronically scanned array 

(AESA) radar on a B–1B bomber to evaluate the utility of an AESA 

to bomber operations. The AESA was developed for use on fighter 

and other aircraft and should require minimum modification for 

application and evaluation on the B–1B. 

Space-based Infrared System 

The budget request included $512.6 million for the Space-based 

Infrared system (SBIRS) for Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64441 including $62.6 million for ground 

systems development. The committee recommends an additional 

$15.0 million for Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) ground integration 

and data exploitation. 

The SBIRS program is a missile early warning, technical intelligence, and battlespace awareness system. Currently, there are 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
82 

two of the HEO sensors on orbit. The Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 

(GEO) satellites continue to be plagued by schedule delays and cost 

overruns. The GEO–1 satellite has slipped an additional year since 

last year as it continues to have software problems. Additional 

funds were reprogrammed into SBIRS in fiscal year 2009 but the 

problems continue with the GEO–1 satellite. As a result, funds 

needed to resolve ground issues and HEO data exploitation have 

not been sufficient. The committee is very concerned that the performance capability of the two HEO sensors be fully understood 

and exploited including the benefits from HEO stereo applications. 

Notwithstanding the continuing GEO–1 problems the Air Force 

will continue the SBIRS program through GEO–4 and most likely 

to GEO–5, –6, and even beyond. In looking ahead the committee 

is concerned that the Air Force is not buying the future GEO satellites in the most cost effective way possible. To reduce the cost 

of future GEO satellites, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Air Force to determine the number of GEO satellites that will be 

needed beyond GEO–4 and the possibility of buying these satellites 

using fixed pricing. The committee notes that the overhead persistent infrared architecture study will be completed later this 

summer and that this study will inform the future requirements 

for SBIRS satellites and sensors. 

Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $1,741.3 million in PE 64800N, and $1,858.1 million in PE 64800F for continued development of the 

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, including $476.0 million for 

management reserves to cover unforeseen problems that may arise 

during the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of 

the program. 

The Department conducted a review of JSF program costs and 

schedules last year. The group conducting the review, called the 

Joint Estimating Team (JET), recommended, among other things, 

that the management reserves available to the program executive 

officer (PEO) be increased throughout the remainder of SDD program. As a result of the JET recommendations, the Department increased management reserves to the level requested in the budget. 

The Department has informed the committee that the PEO now 

believes that he can fully execute the fiscal year 2010 SDD program with only $320.0 million, or $156.0 million less than was included in the request. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $78.0 million 

in PE 64800N and a decrease of $78.0 million in PE 64800F to 

eliminate these excess management reserves. 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 

The budget request included $26.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64853F for the Evolved 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) but no funds to continue the 

Global Positioning System (GPS) based metric tracking effort. The 

committee recommends an additional $12.0 million for GPS metric 

tracking. The committee understands that the Air Force will be reprogramming fiscal year 2009 funds for EELV GPS metric tracking 

and funds are needed in fiscal year 2010 to continue this important 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
83 

effort need to support the east and west coast launch ranges. The 

long-term plan is to have all launches utilize GPS and reduce the 

amount of radar support for launches. 

Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft 

The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 65277F for development of the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft 

(CSAR–X). These fund various activities, including program support and purchasing helicopters for replacing operational losses. 

The Air Force anticipated awarding the development contract for 

the CSAR–X in the spring of 2008, but the award was delayed 

twice by successful protests, and Secretary Gates has recommended 

terminating the current effort while the Department reviews the 

entire combat search and rescue mission area as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). 

The committee believes that funds available within this program 

from prior years is sufficient to support all of these fiscal year 2010 

activities, and therefore, recommends a reduction of $90.0 million 

in PE 65277F for CSAR–X. The committee strongly supports modernizing the combat search and rescue capability, but sees no need 

to authorize more funds than are required to support these activities in the interim while the Department conducts the QDR review. 

Air Force test and evaluation 

The budget request included $60.8 million in PE 64759F for 

major test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that 

the Director of the Test Resource Management Center has expressed concern over the reductions in funding for government and 

contractor personnel at the Air Force’s test ranges. The committee 

is also concerned that Air Force underinvestment will prevent the 

test ranges from fully meeting the workload projected for the 

ranges, putting developmental and operational testing of critical 

programs at risk. Cost growth and potentially insufficiently tested 

equipment may then be deployed to operational forces given insufficient testing. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Air Force to work more closely with the Director of the Test Resource Management Center to ensure that Air Force investment in 

its test ranges is sufficient to meet the workload requirements of 

its joint users. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 

million in PE 65807F to address the shortfall in the Air Force 

budget request and alleviate the risk to operational users of equipment to be tested. 

The committee also notes the importance to preserve the capability to test missiles and their sub-systems, such as sensors and 

structures, at very high speeds. To support the enhancement of 

these capabilities the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 

million for upgrades to the high speed test track at Holloman Air 

Force Base. 

Multi-platform radar technology insertion program 

The budget request included $140.7 million in PE 27581F for research and development projects for the E–8 joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS). 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
84 

The cancelled E–10 aircraft program was supposed to be a test 

bed for the multi-platform radar technology insertion program 

(MP–RTIP). The Air Force, however, intends to field this MP–RTIP 

sensor suite on a number of other air vehicles, including the Global 

Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). 

The committee believes that the Air Force should pursue another 

path, whether that would be the E–8 JSTARS or some other platform, and field the better capability than can be achieved with the 

Global Hawk. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$92.0 million in PE 27581F for maturing the MP–RTIP sensor 

suite. 

Wide-area airborne surveillance 

The budget request included $46.0 million in PE 35206F for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of the Gorgon 

Stare wide-area airborne surveillance system (WAAS); $19.9 million in Aircraft Procurement Air Force, Line 25, and $13.0 million 

in Operations and Maintenance, Air Force. 

The committee recommends no funds to continue Gorgon Stare 

development, following the action of the appropriations conference 

on the fiscal year 2009 supplemental to deny funding for additional 

quick-reaction capability (QRC) systems. The committee recommends this action for multiple reasons. 

WAAS requirements remain murky, despite the fact that the 

Gorgon Stare program passed through the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council (JROC) process. The Air Force and the Marine 

Corps canceled delivery of five Angel Fire WAAS systems that had 

already been largely paid for even though the first increment of 

Gorgon Stare would provide similar performance. If current systems are not useful, there is little point in spending large sums and 

waiting an additional 1–2 years for a similar capability, even if it 

is to be deployed on a longer-endurance platform. 

Data-driven studies by the Joint Staff, Program Analysis and 

Evaluation (PA&E), and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), raise serious questions about the utility of moderate resolution wide-area motion imagery. Increasing 

the resolution of these cameras to the levels that these studies suggest are needed leads to a dramatic reduction in the size of the 

area imaged. This reduction, in turn, leads to a large increase in 

the number of orbiting combat air patrols (CAPs), which casts 

doubt on the affordability of the capability. 

Furthermore, the studies referenced above, so far, have not produced sufficient evidence that forensic analysis of moderate-resolution, wide-area motion imagery is productive enough to justify a 

large investment in sensors and platforms—especially in the absence of effective automated analytic tools. 

The committee is also concerned that the Air Force has not demonstrated that it is prepared to optimize its ability to perform the 

joint WAAS mission. The Air Force insists that the Reaper platform, even when conducting WAAS missions, must carry a large 

weapons load as well as ancillary sensors, which limits the weight, 

space and power available for the WAAS sensor. 

The committee’s recommendation to terminate the Gorgon Stare 

program does not reflect lack of support for vigorous efforts to deVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
85 

termine the potential value of, and requirements for, WAAS motion 

imagery. The committee fully supports sustaining the Army Constant Hawk program and fully examining the value of forensic 

analysis based on all sources of geo-referenced intelligence data. 

The committee urges the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency’s Office of Counterterrorism, the Joint Staff, USDI, PA&E, and 

the Counter-improvised explosive device(IED) Operations Integration Center (COIC) of the Joint IED Defeat organization (JIEDDO) 

to rigorously assess the current and potential utility of the analysis 

of layered geo-referenced intelligence data, including WAAS and 

ground moving target indicator radar data. 

The committee also strongly supports the ISR Task Force recommendation to accept delivery of the Angel Fire WAAS systems, 

narrow the sensor field of view for higher resolution, and pair the 

system with high-resolution motion video and other sensors. 

These activities should assist the Department of Defense (DOD) 

in defining WAAS requirements. Meanwhile, DOD should sustain 

the vibrant WAAS technology industrial base to provide solutions 

to future QRC and program-of-record initiatives. The committee 

recommends authorization of $10.0 million in PE 64400D8Z, Unmanned Systems Common Development, RDT&E Defense-Wide, 

line 101, for WAAS technology development broadly across the industrial base. The committee also recommends $5.0 million in the 

same account to sustain the innovative processing activities 

planned in the Gorgon Stare program, and to develop automated 

WAAS motion imagery exploitation tools to support forensic analysis. 

Multi-sensor detect, sense, and avoid 

The Department of Defense faces a serious challenge in working 

with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop capabilities 

and procedures to enable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to operate safely within the national airspace. One element of these capabilities is sense and avoid technology for collision avoidance. The 

committee recommends authorization of $4.0 million in PE 35219F, 

for the continued development of multi-sensor detect, sense, and 

avoid capabilities that will help achieve the goal of permitting UAV 

pilots/operators to file a flight plan, obtain an air traffic control 

clearance, and fly in domestic and international airspace. 

Joint Space Operation Center System 

The budget request included $131.3 million for the Joint Space 

Operation Center (JSpOC) system in Air Force Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation PE 35614F line 210. This is a new 

program element that results from a consolidation of several previous separate space situational awareness programs. The JSpOC 

system is focused on upgrading the ability of the JSpOC to track, 

monitor, predict, and to respond in real time to events in space. 

The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million to continue 

the Karnac study, which is a joint Air Force and Department of 

Energy National Laboratory effort to utilize and modify existing capabilities developed to support the nuclear weapons program to imVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
86 

prove the JSpOC capabilities, including using nontraditional data 

and three dimensional modeling and simulation capability. 

Biometric signature and passive physiological monitoring 

The budget request included $6.4 million in PE 91202F for research and development projects for Joint Personnel Recovery 

Agency, but included no funding to develop personnel identification 

technologies based on biometric sensors. 

Passive biometric sensors show promise as a way of uniquely 

identifying personnel prior to deploying air rescue and evacuation 

forces to extract them. 

The committee believes that the Department should pursue these 

technologies to avoid exposing search and rescue forces to needless 

risk. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 91202F for developing biometric signature and passive 

physiological monitoring systems. 

Defense-wide 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research 

The budget request included no funding in PE 61114D8Z for the 

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

(DEPSCoR). This program was established by Congress to enhance 

the capabilities of universities in eligible States to perform defense 

science and engineering research by competitively funding defense 

basic research programs and investing in research infrastructure. 

The committee notes that the recent Institute for Defense Analyses’ 

study on DEPSCoR found that the program has led to successful 

transition of research innovations into Department acquisition programs and operational use. The study also found that participating 

States have increased the number and value of non-DEPSCOR research awards they have received from the Department of Defense. 

To support these successes and continue the congressionally mandated program, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for DEPSCoR. 

In-vitro models for bio-defense vaccines 

The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense basic research, but included no 

funds for development of lung models to improve vaccine development. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

61384BP for development of an in-vitro lung model to support biodefense vaccines against aerosolized pathogens. This research will 

improve understanding of the interaction between human lung immune cells and aerosolized biological agents, thus improving the effectiveness of future vaccines. 

Information and communications technology 

The budget request included $282.3 million in PE 62303E for information and communications technology development. The committee recommends a reduction of $4.5 million for the content distribution program. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 

million for the next generation core optical networks program. The 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
87 

committee is concerned that these activities are not well coordinated with the well funded enterprise services and network communications programs in the military services and the Defense Information Systems Agency. 

Cognitive computing 

The budget request included $142.8 million in PE 62304E for development of cognitive computing systems. The committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million for cognitive computing activities, including cognitive networking and computer learning programs such as Local Area Network droids, Situation-Aware Protocols in Edge Network Technologies, and Brood of Spectrum Supremacy. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has 

been funding a number of these efforts in parallel for a number of 

years with limited transition success. The committee believes that 

some of these activities are redundant with extensive investments 

being made in the private sector and have unclear transition pathways to operational systems. 

Biological decontamination research 

The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research. The committee 

recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62384BP for research of improved decontamination capabilities against spores of 

anthrax and Clostridium difficile, two agents of considerable concern to the Department of Defense. Such capabilities could be used 

to improve both protection and treatment of military service members. 

Chemical and biological infrared detector 

The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, but included no 

funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection technology. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62384BP 

to continue development and miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for chemical and biological agents. The objective is to demonstrate a functional prototype that operates at high 

speed and sensitivity with low false alarm rates. Such a system 

could reduce the logistical burden compared to other technologies. 

Funding for meritorious bio-defense projects 

The budget request included $209.1 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense applied research, including $21.0 

million for the Transformational Medical Technologies Initiative 

(TMTI) program. The TMTI program is intended to develop new 

technologies to reduce risk from the likely emergence of genetically 

engineered or manipulated biological agents. A recent Broad Agency Announcement for the TMTI program stated that ‘‘the Government reserves the right to create and maintain a reserve list of 

proposals for potential funding, in the event that sufficient funding 

becomes available.’’ The committee is aware that there are eight 

such proposed TMTI projects that have been judged meritorious of 

funding, for a total of $9.9 million. The committee believes that it 

is important for the Department to acknowledge when there are 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
88 

proposed projects that would advance our military capabilities if 

funding were available, and encourages the Department to make 

this information known to the congressional defense committees, to 

help guide an assessment of the adequacy of resources and in the 

authorization of new investment activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.9 million in PE 

62384BP for the eight proposals that have been judged by the Department to be meritorious of funding, if funding becomes available. 

Tactical technology 

The budget request included $276.1 million in PE 62702E for applied research on tactical technologies. The committee recommends 

a reduction of $3.0 million from this account to delay the Submersible Aircraft new start program. The committee further recommends a reduction of $10.0 million from the Extreme Accuracy 

Tasked Ordnance program. The committee believes that there are 

higher priority Army technologies on which the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency and the Army could be collaborating. 

Blast mitigation and protection 

The budget request included $219.1 million in PE 62718BR for 

the development of technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62718BR to continue blast mitigation and protection analysis and 

software development to improve the Vulnerability Assessment and 

Protection Option analytic tool used by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to predict the effects of high-explosive blasts on buildings, and to design protection and mitigation options for military 

and government facilities. 

Combating terrorism technologies 

The budget request included $81.9 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

combating terrorism technology support. The committee notes that 

urgent operational need statements have called for improved intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance tools. To support efforts to 

fulfill these operational needs, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for advanced reconnaissance and data exploitation systems. In order to support the development of advanced 

blast resistant construction materials and buildings, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.5 million for impact and blast loading laboratory testing technologies. 

Advanced aerospace systems 

The budget request included $338.4 million in PE 63286E for advanced aerospace systems. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $4.0 million for the Heliplane program. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for the Disc-Rotor Compound 

Helicopter program. The transition pathway for these demonstrator 

programs to a Service is largely unclear at this time. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.0 million for the Triple Target 

Terminator program. The committee believes that there are higher 

priority threats that can be addressed with technology development 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
89 

activities than engaging counter air, countering cruise missile, and 

destroying enemy air defense targets. 

Integrated Sensor is Structure 

The budget request included $338.4 million in PE 63286E for Ad- vanced Aerospace Systems. Of that amount, $180.5 million supports persistent or responsive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) programs, including Rapid Eye, Vulture, and Integrated Sensor is Structure (ISIS). The committee notes that the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, and the military departments have numerous persistent or responsive ISR capabilities in development. 

The committee recommends a decrease in PE 63286E of $90.0 million for these efforts at DARPA. The committee directs the Director 

of Defense Research and Engineering, with assistance from the Director of DARPA and the military department science and technology acquisition executives, to review the portfolio of programs 

across the Department to ensure that the highest priority science 

and technology challenges in persistent unmanned capability are 

being addressed with limited available resources. The committee further recommends a reduction of $35.0 million 

in PE 35205F for activities related to the support of the ISIS program. The committee notes that ISIS is a science and technology 

program and its funding should be derived from such accounts, and 

also that there is no clear indication of an Air Force transition 

strategy for the ISIS capability. 

Joint capability technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $198.4 million in PE 63648D8Z for 

Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD). The committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million from JCTD new 

starts. The committee is concerned that the JCTD program record 

of transitioning technologies to operational forces or programs of 

record is limited. Often, a large investment of resources in a JCTD 

program results in only the delivery of a limited residual capability 

to a Service, defense agency, or operational unit, and no formal 

transition into a program of record or procurement for operational 

use. The committee believes that limited JCTD resources should be 

focused on fewer, higher priority concept and technology demonstration and development efforts, which have stronger support 

and greater cost-share from sponsoring Services or defense agencies, in order to increase the effectiveness of the program. 

High performance defense manufacturing technology program 

The budget request included $14.6 million in PE 63680D8Z for 

manufacturing science and technology programs. In title II, subtitle 

D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163), the committee established the High Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology Program to promote 

the use of information technologies, enhance manufacturing efficiency, undertake technology roadmapping efforts to coordinate research and manufacturing efforts, and to accelerate the dissemination of manufacturing innovations into the defense industrial base. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
90 

To continue efforts under the program, the committee recommends 

an increase of $10.0 million for the High Performance Defense 

Manufacturing Technology Program. 

Defense Logistics Agency energy research 

The budget request included $19.0 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics technology demonstrations. The Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) is responsible for acquiring and managing all of the 

fuel required by the military. The DLA energy readiness research 

and development program has thrust areas that include research 

on alternative energy, including fuel cells and the conversion of 

waste and biomass into fuels. In support of these objectives, the 

committee recommends an additional: $4.0 million for biofuels research; $2.5 million on research on the conversion of biomass into 

logistics fuels; $8.0 million to continue the vehicle fuel cell and logistics program; $3.0 million for development and demonstrations 

of microgrids at forward operating bases; and $3.75 million for research on the manufacturing of fuel cells for defense missions. 

High performance computing 

The budget request included $221.3 million in PE 63755D8Z for 

the high performance computing modernization program. The 2007 

report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology recommended that a plan be developed to support the 

use of high-end computing assets to conduct long-term research on 

important national problems. Consistent with that recommendation, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research on high performance computational design of novel materials for defense applications. 

Deep green 

The budget request included $293.5 million in PE 63760E for 

command, control, and communications systems. The committee 

recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for the Deep Green program. The program’s technologies are intended to transition into 

Army command and control systems. The committee notes that 

Army current and future command and control systems, such as 

the Global Command and Control Systems-Army and the Net Enabled Command Capability, are undergoing significant restructuring, thereby reducing the priority of this research investment. 

Small unmanned aerial vehicle detection system 

The budget request included $243.1 million in PE 63767E for 

sensor technology development. The committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 million for the development of the small unmanned 

aerial vehicle detection system. The committee believes that these 

funds can be better used addressing high priority threats. 

Quick Reaction Fund 

The budget request included $29.2 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

the Quick Reaction Fund. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $15.0 million for this effort. The committee commends efforts of 

the Department of Defense to transition promising technologies 

into programs of record and deploying them into operational use. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
91 

The committee is concerned that the funds appropriated for the 

Quick Reaction Fund have been invested in technologies which are 

not close to transitioning, as well as to support studies and analyses efforts that are more properly supported by other accounts. 

Further, the committee is concerned about the lack of coordination 

between the activities of the Quick Reaction Fund and those of the 

Services and defense agencies. The Services and defense agencies 

should be encouraged to leverage the fund in order to accelerate 

the transition of promising technologies into their programs or into 

the hands of their operational organizations. 

Special warfare situational awareness systems 

The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

Quick Reaction Special Projects. The committee supports the 

Navy’s efforts to integrate advanced threat awareness technology 

into all facets of small craft operations. To continue these efforts, 

the committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million for development of integrated situational awareness systems for special warfare missions. 

Joint Forces Command activities 

The budget request included $124.5 million in PE 63828D8Z for 

joint experimentation. The committee recommends a reduction of 

$5.0 million for efforts related to space control and global positioning system experimentation. The committee believes these are 

redundant to activities underway in both the Air Force and United 

States Strategic Command. 

Lithium ion battery safety research 

The budget request included $31.7 million in PE 1160402BB for 

the demonstration and evaluation of advanced technologies that, 

among other things, enhance the performance of mobility platforms. Lithium ion technology has shown promise for reducing the 

size of batteries while also improving their performance characteristics. The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million for 

the development of monitoring techniques and battery management 

systems that will allow early detection and control of impending 

failures in lithium ion batteries. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency execution 

issues 

The budget request included $3,248.1 million for the research 

and management activities of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee notes that DARPA has 

had significant difficulty over the last few fiscal years in executing 

all of its authorized funds in a timely fashion. The committee also 

notes that, on average, since fiscal year 2005, DARPA has executed 

over $300.0 million less per year than the agency’s annual appropriated budget. The funds have either been used as sources for reprogramming actions, Congressional rescissions, or have expired. 

The committee believes that this slow execution of funds reflects a 

combination of DARPA’s program management style and a shortage of program managers within the agency. The committee recommends a reduction of $150.0 million from DARPA’s overall budgVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
92 

et to reflect continuing concerns about timely and effective execution of funds by the agency. 

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector 

The budget request included $206.0 million in PE 63884BP for 

chemical and biological defense advanced component development 

and prototypes, but included no funds for development of a mobile 

non-specific viral agent detector. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63884BP for development of a mobile 

real-time non-specific viral agent detector that would improve current detection capabilities. This could be a significant upgrade to 

the Joint Biological Agent Identification and Diagnostic System. 

Airborne infrared surveillance technology 

The budget request included $636.9 million in PE 63884C for 

ballistic missile defense sensors. The Missile Defense Agency has 

initiated an ascent-phase intercept program that will benefit from 

improved infrared sensor technology. The committee recommends 

an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63884C for airborne infrared surveillance technology development to improve the capability for precision tracking data on ballistic missiles, particularly in their ascent phase. 

Aegis ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in PE 63892C for research and development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 

(BMD) program and its Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptor. 

The committee notes with satisfaction that the budget request 

would increase substantially the planned inventory of SM–3 interceptors, from a previously planned inventory of 147 to 329, and 

would increase by six the number of Aegis BMD ship conversions. 

As indicated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, this increase in 

planned capability represents a fundamental shift in focus of the 

ballistic missile defense program to capabilities for protecting our 

forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations against 

the large number of existing short- and medium-range theater missile threats. 

This shift is consistent with the guidance provided by Congress 

over the last few years and with the findings of the Joint Capabilities Mix studies conducted by the Joint Staff over the last 3 years. 

Those studies concluded that the Department of Defense was planning to procure fewer than half of the minimum inventory of SM– 

3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors 

that would be needed to meet the operational requirements of the 

regional combatant commanders against existing and expected 

short- and medium-range missile threats. 

In the report to accompany the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee stated the following: ‘‘The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities 

Mix (JCM) study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that U.S. 

combatant commanders need about twice as many SM–3 and 

THAAD interceptors as currently planned to meet just their minimum operational requirements for defending against the many 

hundreds of existing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
93 

The committee is deeply disappointed that the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) has not planned or budgeted to acquire more than 

a fraction of the SM–3 interceptors needed to meet the warfighters’ 

minimum operational needs. The committee believes that achieving 

at least the JCM levels of upper tier interceptors in a timely manner should be the highest priority for MDA, and expects the Agency 

to modify its plans and budgets to meet our combatant commanders’ current operational needs.’’ 

The committee welcomes the shift in focus toward providing effective near-term capabilities against existing regional missile 

threats, and commends the Department of Defense for this shift. 

The budget request would also begin the development of a landbased variant of the SM–3 missile. The committee believes such a 

capability could provide a significant enhancement to U.S. missile 

defense capabilities in a number of circumstances. It is being developed, in part, as a relatively low-risk and near-term option as a 

component of an Israeli upper tier missile defense system, as a risk 

mitigation path for the possibility that the development of the 

Arrow–3 interceptor will take longer than planned, or might not 

achieve technical success. A land-based SM–3 could also provide regional defense capability in Europe and Asia, and could be a crucial 

element of the ascent-phase/early intercept capability initiative included in the budget request. In this regard, a land-based SM–3 

has the potential, if deployed in the European theater, to defend 

Europe and the United States from a potential future long-range 

Iranian ballistic missile threat. The committee commends the Department for initiating this land-based SM–3 development effort. 

The committee sees this program as a high priority, and considers 

it an item of special interest to the committee. The budget request of $1.7 billion in PE 63892C for the Aegis BMD system is nearly $600.0 million more than the level of funding provided in fiscal year 2009, a 34 percent increase. Although 

the committee strongly supports the Aegis BMD program, and the 

Department’s shift in focus toward meeting the current needs of 

the regional combatant commanders against the thousands of existing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, the committee believes that the proposed level of increased funding will be too high 

to execute. The committee therefore recommends, without prejudice, a reduction of $30.0 million to PE 63892C for the Aegis BMD 

program. 

Short-range ballistic missile defense 

The budget request included $119.7 million in PE 63913C for cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, including $45.8 

million for joint development of a short-range ballistic missile defense system known as ‘‘David’s Sling.’’ This system is intended to 

defend Israel against short-range missiles and rockets of the type 

fired from Lebanon. The United States is sharing the development 

of the system to ensure that it is compatible with U.S. missile defense systems, and to provide an option for the U.S. military to procure the system in the future, if needed. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63913C to accelerate 

the development of the David’s Sling short-range ballistic missile 

defense system. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
94 

Corrosion control research 

The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 64400D8Z for 

corrosion programs. In support of Department of Defense efforts to 

reduce maintenance costs due to corrosion, the committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE 64400D8Z for corrosion 

research activities. 

Systems engineering and prototyping program 

The budget request included $19.7 million in PE 64787D8Z for 

the Joint Systems Integration Command. The committee notes that 

the budget request is inconsistent with the Department’s rhetoric 

on encouraging systems engineering and prototyping activities. The 

budget request reduces funding for advanced component development and prototype programs by 12.8 percent (more than $1.5 billion) relative to the fiscal year 2009 budget request. To encourage 

more prototyping where warranted and more robust systems engineering activities, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 

million in PE 64787D8Z to be managed by the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to initiate the 

systems engineering and prototyping program established elsewhere in this Act. 

Test and evaluation programs 

The budget request included $145.1 million in PE 64940D8Z for 

test and evaluation investments. The 2007 Strategic Plan for Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Resources noted, ‘‘Outdated threat missile fly-out models reduced the effectiveness of 

both active and passive countermeasures testing.’’ To help address 

this shortfall, the committee recommends an additional $4.0 million for development of surface-to-air missile hardware simulators. 

Cyber test range 

The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 35103E for the 

Cyber Security Initiative. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $19.6 million for investment related development of a cyber test 

range. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is investing in the development of a number of cyber security related 

developmental and operational test ranges, in addition to currently 

operating a number of advanced ranges in this area. The committee also notes that the Director of the Test Resource Management Center is currently assessing the Department’s overall capabilities for network systems testing, including for cyber security capabilities. The committee believes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s investment in this area should be limited 

to developing advanced tools for testing cyber security technologies, 

and should not expand into the wholesale development of operational test ranges or the management of such capabilities. 

Technology applications for security enhancement 

The budget request for PE 35884L, Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, for the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Intelligence 

Planning and Review Activities is classified. An effective national 

bio-security plan must address prevention, preparedness, response, 

and attribution. The committee recommends an authorization of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
95 

$4.0 million for the Center for the Mitigation of Evolving Threats 

for research and development of early detection capabilities, impact 

mitigation, and forensic analysis. 

Policy decision point technology 

The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 33140N for the 

Information Systems Security Program (ISSP), but no funds for the 

development of a policy decision point capability for the Navy’s 

Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES). 

The secure discovery function of CANES requires a policy decision point capability for access control that cannot be satisfied with 

available commercial or government-owned technology. The committee recommends an authorization of $27.7 million for the Navy’s 

ISSP, an increase of $3.5 million above the request. 

Software assurance courseware development 

The budget request included $408.3 million in PE 33140G for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for the 

Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for the continued development of information assurance instructional materials, curricula, and courseware reflecting best practices for institutes of higher education. Such instructional materials are essential for community colleges, colleges, and universities to educate 

students to produce secure software to protect government and 

commercial information systems from attack. 

The National Security Agency has conducted this activity at a 

designated National Center of Academic Excellence in Information 

Assurance Education for 2 years. An additional $1.8 million will 

allow the completion of this capability. Accordingly, the committee 

recommends an authorization of $410.1 million, an increase of $1.8 

million above the request. 

Policy research, development, test, and evaluation 

The budget request included $6.9 million in PE 35186D8Z for 

policy research and development. The committee recommends a reduction of $6.0 million for this account. The committee is concerned 

that many of the international cooperation, linguistics, and 

wargaming activities that are planned for this funding are already 

being undertaken by other organizations within the Department of 

Defense, including the United States Joint Forces Command, service laboratories, and defense agencies. Further, the justification 

materials provided to Congress for the account are unclear and inconsistent. The committee directs that policy research and development activities be more closely coordinated with efforts in research, 

development, and acquisition programs under the oversight of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Logistics manufacturing research 

The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 78011S for Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) manufacturing technology efforts. 

The DLA Advanced Microcircuit Emulation program develops continuing technical capability for providing military specification 

equivalent integrated circuits to mitigate electronic parts obsolesVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
96 

cence in new and legacy defense systems. To support these efforts, 

the committee recommends an additional $4.5 million for microcircuit emulation efforts. 

DLA has a stated research thrust to improve casting procurement processes at its Defense Supply Centers in order to reduce 

lead times, improve reliability, and strengthen the defense supply 

chain. To enhance these efforts the committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for castings research. 

The Department of Defense has established a policy of increasing 

the use of insensitive munitions in all weapons applications. To 

support the production of these systems, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for insensitive munitions 

manufacturing research. 

Finally, the committee recommends an additional $30.0 million 

to continue the Industrial Base Innovation Fund program. The 

committee directs that DLA, jointly with the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Industrial Policy, continue to make investments 

in manufacturing research that address defense industrial base 

shortfalls especially related to surge production requirements and 

diminishing sources of defense material. 

Long endurance unattended ground sensor technologies 

The budget request included $21.2 million in PE 1160405BB for 

identification, development, and testing of intelligence equipment 

for special operators to provide timely exchange of intelligence and 

threat warning to all organizational echelons. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the development of long 

endurance unattended ground sensor technologies to provide special operators with enhanced situational awareness; target detection, imaging, tagging and tracking; and high bandwidth communication of data, voice, and video. 

Items of Special Interest 

Ballistic missile defense overview 

The budget request included $7.8 billion for Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA) missile defense programs, including research, development, test and evaluation, procurement, and military construction funds. The committee notes a number of positive developments 

with the ballistic missile defense program of MDA included in the 

budget request. 

The budget request includes a shift in focus on increasing capabilities needed by regional combatant commanders to defend our 

forward deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations against 

the many existing short- and medium-range threats. As announced 

by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the budget would increase 

funding by $900.0 million to increase the inventory of Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Standard Missile–3 

(SM–3) interceptors, and to convert an additional six Aegis Ballistic 

Missile Defense (BMD) ships for deployment in the Atlantic Fleet. 

In accordance with the budget request, the Department of Defense 

would plan to increase the SM–3 interceptor inventory from 147 to 

329, and increase the THAAD interceptor inventory from 96 to 289. 

These numbers are consistent with the level of THAAD and SM– 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
97 

3 interceptors recommended by the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 

studies conducted by the Joint Staff, and are consistent with the 

guidance of the committee and Congress. 

For the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the 

budget request would continue to procure all 44 Ground-Based 

Interceptors (GBIs), with 14 of them planned for testing and 

spares. The budget request would cap the deployment of GBIs in 

Alaska and California at 30, and focus on further development and 

robust testing to improve the capability of this system to defend 

against the limited threat to our country from nations such as 

North Korea and possibly Iran in the future. This decision was supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the relevant combatant commanders. Senior Department of Defense officials explained that the 

Department conducted an assessment, involving the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and the combatant commands, of the long-range missile 

threat to the United States and determined that, according to Secretary Gates, 30 GBIs ‘‘are fully adequate to protect us against a 

North Korean threat for a number of years.’’ 

The committee welcomes the emphasis on improving the capability of the GMD system, including through robust and operationally realistic testing and evaluation. In December 2008, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) reported that 

‘‘GMD flight testing to date will not support a high degree of confidence in its limited capabilities.’’ In January 2009, DOT&E issued 

an annual assessment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

(BMDS), which included a number of concerns about the GMD system. The committee notes that MDA has worked for half a year 

with DOT&E and the operational test elements of the military departments to establish a comprehensive test and evaluation plan 

for the BMDS, and expects that plan to be completed by the end 

of the summer. The committee expects that plan to guide a longterm test plan for GMD, including operationally realistic tests that 

provide a high degree of confidence in the capability of the system, 

including its ability to perform its mission for the duration of its 

operational life. If such testing requires additional interceptors, the 

committee notes that senior Department officials testified that it 

would be possible to buy more GBIs in the future if they are needed. 

The budget request includes an initiative to develop a new capability for ascent-phase (or early) intercepts, relying on improved 

use of existing and new sensors and interceptors such as the SM– 

3, whether on ships or on land. According to senior Department officials, such a capability would allow U.S. forces to engage threat 

missiles early in their flight, including long-range missiles, thus 

providing multiple opportunities to destroy the missiles in flight. In 

the case of long-range threat missiles, such a capability could also 

permit destruction of the threat missile before the GMD system 

would be needed to defend the Nation. If the initiative proves successful, such a capability could, if deployed in the European theater, provide defense of Europe and the United States against a potential future long-range missile threat from Iran. The committee 

supports this initiative, and commends the Department for conceiving of the concept for a cost-effective and operationally effective 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
98 

system that relies, to a large extent, on existing or near-term technologies. 

The committee notes that Secretary of Defense Gates decided to 

terminate a number of long-term research and development programs for missile defense that had technical, conceptual, cost, or 

operational problems. These decisions include the termination of 

the Multiple Kill Vehicle program, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor 

program, and cancelation of the second Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft, and shifting the ABL program to a research and development 

effort. The Director of MDA testified that he recommended these 

changes, and Secretary Gates’ decision was supported by the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders. The committee 

supports the Secretary’s decision. 

Finally, the committee notes that MDA has initiated a number 

of significant acquisition reform initiatives that are consistent with 

the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–124), and are intended to increase the accountability and effectiveness of MDA acquisition programs. The committee welcomes 

these acquisition initiatives, and believes they are long overdue. 

Federally funded research and development centers 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s federally 

funded research and development centers (FFRDC) play an important role undertaking studies, analyses, research, and systems engineering projects to support defense missions. The committee believes that the requirement to make use of defense FFRDCs will 

be increased by the initiatives being undertaken by the Department to reform the acquisition process, and also by the urgent demands for technical and analytic support related to current operations. The committee urges the Department to maintain a stable 

and consistent investment in defense FFRDCs, including in core 

programs funded directly by research, development, test, and evaluation appropriations. 

Ground/air task oriented radar 

The budget request included $63.9 million in PE 26313M, Marine 

Corps Communications Systems, for Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, for the Ground/Air Task oriented Radar (GATOR). 

The committee understands that this program is being restructured, and has been designated as an item of special interest by the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, who will retain milestone decision authority. The committee 

further understands that the Marine Corps leadership is reviewing 

the program for affordability and for possible joint development of 

a mobile ground multi-mode radar capability with the Army. The 

committee expects to be kept informed as these deliberations 

progress. In particular, the committee expects to be informed of 

any decision affecting fiscal year 2010 program plans or budgets 

prior to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010. 

Israeli upper tier missile defense 

The budget request included $119.7 million in PE 63913C for cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, including $37.5 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
99 

million for joint development of an upper tier interceptor to replace 

the Arrow–2 interceptor, known as the Arrow–3. The committee 

supports the joint U.S.-Israeli development of the Arrow–3 interceptor, but is concerned that the program has risks that may take 

significantly longer to resolve than the timeline envisioned, and not 

in time to meet Israel’s required schedule. 

According to the testimony of Lieutenant General Patrick 

O’Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, the Arrow–3 development program is ‘‘deemed to have very high schedule and 

technical risk.’’ The Missile Defense Agency is currently negotiating 

an Upper Tier Project Agreement that is intended to ensure that 

the Arrow–3 program is managed according to sound acquisition 

and management principles, including a requirement for accomplishing technology knowledge points according to a schedule. 

According to Lieutenant General O’Reilly, to ‘‘mitigate the 

Arrow–3 development schedule risk, we are ensuring that the development of a land-based variant of the proven Aegis SM–3 missile is available to meet Israel’s upper tier requirements.’’ The committee agrees with this management and risk mitigation approach, 

and commends the Department for ensuring there will be a relatively low-risk and near-term upper tier option, based on the operationally effective SM–3, to meet Israel’s upper tier missile defense 

needs in a timely manner. The committee requests that the Missile 

Defense Agency keep the congressional defense committees apprised of developments in the Israeli upper tier missile defense program, including both the Arrow–3 and land-based SM–3 development programs. 

KC–X tanker replacement program 

The committee regards the need to modernize the current fleet 

of KC–135 aerial refueling tanker aircraft as a vital national security priority and supports the KC-X tanker recapitalization program, as well as efforts by the Air Force both to maintain the existing fleet and augment capability with aerial fee-for-service, if it 

proves cost-effective under the pending pilot program. Given the 

troubled history of the program, the committee expects that the Department of Defense will pursue a process of procuring replacement 

tankers that will ensure that the joint warfighter receives the best 

capability at the best price. The committee believes that this can 

only be achieved by an acquisition strategy that does not pre-determine the outcome of the competition and a competition that is fair 

and open. In addition, the committee believes that, in accordance 

with the principles of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) and as a means of improving contractor performance, the Department of Defense must ensure that 

the acquisition strategy of the KC–X program includes measures 

that ensure competition, or the option of competition, throughout 

the life cycle of the program, where appropriate and cost-effective. 

Laboratory recapitalization and sustainment issues 

The committee is aware that Department of Defense laboratories 

have chronically been underfunded for upgrade and modernization 

requirements that use military construction and facility 

sustainment funds. The unique mission of Department laboratories 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
100 

requires an aggressive and proactive investment strategy to support emerging technologies and state-of-the art systems and equipment. The average rate of investment for recapitalization, as well 

as for sustainment restoration and modernization (SRM) funding, 

has been appreciably below industry standards and other governmental laboratories, despite special authorities provided by Congress in recent years to use Research, Development, Testing, and 

Evaluation funds for military construction activities at higher 

thresholds than other types of facilities. In addition, the committee 

is concerned that the military departments do not have processes 

in place to obtain quantitative data to assess the overall ability of 

the laboratory infrastructure to support existing missions and 

emerging requirements. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

through the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, to report to the congressional defense committees, not later 

than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the health of the Department’s laboratory infrastructure. The report should include a 

list and description of unfunded laboratory military construction 

and major repair projects for the Army, Navy, and Air Force research labs, including the Army research, development and engineering command laboratories, corps of engineers laboratory facilities, and naval warfare centers, and an investment plan required 

to modernize defense laboratories to meet current mission and 

known future mission requirements, as well as data on funding for 

military construction projects and SRM at the defense laboratories 

from fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

Net-Enabled Command Capability 

The committee is deeply disappointed that the Department has 

been unable to come to grips with ongoing dissent within the Department regarding sorely needed modernization in the area of 

joint command and control. It is apparent that the Department’s 

management and governance construct for the Net-Enabled Command Capability (NECC) program has delayed the Department’s 

ability to develop and field the next generation of joint command 

and control capabilities. 

Due to the unwillingness of the Services and others to agree to 

a joint command and control modernization that is centrally managed, the committee directs the termination of the NECC system. 

The committee directs that any remaining Service NECC funds be 

moved into their respective Global Command and Control System 

(GCCS) programs, while the Defense Information Systems Agency 

(DISA) funding programmed for NECC should be aligned to Global 

Command and Control System-Joint program. 

The committee supports the need for a joint command and control architecture and standards to be used in the development of 

the Department’s command and control modernization effort. The 

committee further expects the GCCS program to be modernized 

into a Department-wide joint command and control program and 

expects the Department to appropriately fund this activity so that 

it will transform and incorporate the most advanced technologies 

and capabilities possible. The committee expects that the Services, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
101 

DISA, and the Assistant Secretary for Network and Information Integration will jointly work together to determine the best governance and funding structure to achieve these results efficiently and 

effectively. 

Test and evaluation workforce 

The committee directs the Director of the Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days of enactment of this Act on the 

extent to which contractor positions in the Major Range and Test 

Facility Base should be converted to Department of Defense civilian employee positions. The report should identify any actions the 

military departments and defense agencies plan to take to convert 

such positions between fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015, including any funding and manpower adjustments needed to make the 

conversions. The report should also make an assessment of the impact that the conversion process will have on acquisition programs 

that require the use of affected test facilities. To assist in the development of this report, the committee directs the secretaries of the 

military departments and the heads of the appropriate defense 

agencies to provide TRMC with any information required for this 

report within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance 

The budget request included $143.2 million for Third Generation 

Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS). The committee supports technology 

risk reduction and demonstration efforts to develop the next generation infrared capability to enable the Air Force to launch a successor to the Spaced-based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) when needed. 

At the same time the committee recognizes that the program of 

record, SBIRS, continues to struggle. While the first two highly elliptical orbit sensors are on orbit and are performing the first of 

the geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO), SBIRS has slipped yet another year due to continuing software issues. The committee urges 

the Air Force to continue to improve the wide field of view focal 

plane array technology, including the digital focal plane arrays, so 

that when the technology is sufficiently mature the Air Force can 

make the transition to a less costly, more capable infrared satellite 

system. The committee notes that the plan for next-generation 

overhead persistent infrared architecture is due to Congress in July 

2009. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(103) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions 

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 

certain costs in connection with the former Nansemond 

Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to pay not more than $68,623 as the final payment to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for costs 

incurred in overseeing the removal action performed by the Department of Defense under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for ordnance and explosive safety hazards at the Former 

Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site, Suffolk, Virginia. 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues 

Modification of authority for Army industrial facilities to 

engage in cooperative activities with non-Army entities 

(sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision to clarify the authority 

for the Army to enter into cooperative agreements with non-Army 

entities. 

Improvement of inventory management practices (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for improving its inventory management systems with the objective of reducing costs incurred to acquire and store secondary inventory that is 

excess to requirements. 

The Government Accountability Office has recommended that the 

Department of Defense improve its management of secondary inventory by improving demand forecasting procedures and providing 

better information to item managers. The military departments 

have adopted improved spare parts demand forecasting and life 

cycle cost analysis methodologies for selected programs. The committee encourages the Department to expand these efforts and 

adopt advanced predictive modeling and simulation methodology 

that incorporates asset demand-influencing factors such as time, 

usage, aging of parts, maintenance, and logistics support. 

Temporary suspension of authority for public-private competitions (sec. 323) 

The committee recommends a provision that would place a moratorium on the initiation of public-private competitions under Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–76 until the Department of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
104 

Defense (DOD) implements the requirements of section 2330a of 

title 10, United States Code. 

Section 2330a requires DOD to develop an inventory of activities 

performed for the Department by service contractors. The required 

inventory will provide critical information needed for DOD to rationalize its supplier base, develop effective human capital plans, 

and identify functions that should be considered for public-private 

competition. 

Section 2330a required that the first inventory be submitted to 

Congress by not later than July 1, 2008. Instead of collecting the 

data required to meet this requirement, the Department submitted 

what it called a ‘‘prototype inventory list,’’ consisting of limited 

data available from existing sources. Further, the Department developed a ‘‘phased implementation’’ plan which does not provide for 

full compliance until July 1, 2011—a full 3 years after the statutory deadline. 

The committee notes that DOD and other federal agencies complied with a requirement imposed by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–270) to inventory functions performed by federal employees within 1 year of the date of 

enactment. The committee concludes that the Department is capable of producing the inventory required by section 2330a within a 

comparable period of time. 

Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative (sec. 324) 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) extended the Arsenal Support Program Initiative (ASPI) for 2 years and is currently set to expire at the end 

of fiscal year 2010. A report to accompany the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417) directed a comprehensive depot study to assess a wide 

range of manufacturing and depot maintenance activities to include 

ASPI. 

The committee remains concerned regarding the cost savings to 

the Army and encourages other authorities to be explored which 

will accomplish the same goals as ASPI. 

Accordingly, the committee extends ASPI authority for 1 fiscal 

year and awaits the findings of the comprehensive depot study. 

Modification of date for submittal to Congress of annual report on funding for public and private performance of 

depot-level maintenance and repair workloads (sec. 325) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

date for the report required by section 2466 of title 10, United 

States Code, as requested by the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle D—Energy Provisions 

Energy security on Department of Defense installations 

(sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for identifying and addressing areas in which electricity needed to carry out 

critical missions on Department of Defense installations is vulnerVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
105 

able to disruption. The provision would: (1) direct the Secretary of 

Defense to work with federal, State and local regulatory authorities 

to address areas of vulnerability; and (2) authorize the Secretary 

to award contracts, grants, or other agreements to reimburse private parties for actions taken to address areas of vulnerability. 

Extension and expansion of reporting requirements regarding Department of Defense energy efficiency programs 

(sec. 332) 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

lacks a comprehensive and organized policy regarding energy. It 

appears that each service operates irrespective of each other due to 

lack of Department guidance, resulting in uneven accomplishments 

with respect to energy efficiencies. The committee recommends a 

provision that will also gain visibility on installation renewable energy projects, determine if existing funding mechanisms are sufficient, enhance installation energy security, and provide a cost and 

feasibility response for implementing the recommendations of the 

2008 Defense Science Board study ‘‘More Fight—Less Fuel’’. 

Alternative aviation fuel initiative (sec. 333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

goals for the alternative aviation fuel initiative of the Air Force. 

The provision would also require the submission of reports by the 

Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Defense Science Board. 

Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational 

Energy (sec. 334) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for the Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs 

authorized in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

Subtitle E—Reports 

Study on Army modularity (sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to contract for an independent study on the 

current and planned modularity structures of the Army. 

Modularity refers to the Army’s fundamental reconfiguration of 

its force from a large division-based to a brigade-based structure. 

The new modular brigade combat team (BCT) is intended to have 

an increased capability to operate independently based upon embedded combat support capabilities such as military intelligence, 

reconnaissance, and logistics. Although somewhat smaller in size, 

the new modular brigades are supposed to be just as or more capable than the divisional brigades they replace because they will have 

a more capable mix of equipment-such as advanced communications, intelligence, and surveillance systems. 

At its inception in 2004, the conversion of Army divisional combat brigades to this new modular structure were projected to be accomplished in 3 years, without the need for additional endstrength, and at a cost of $21 billion. Since then, however, the 

modularity initiative has grown in scope, duration, and cost. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
106 

Through fiscal year 2008, the Army has established over 80 percent 

of its planned modular units, however, estimates on how long it 

will take to equip this force as required in authorization documents 

has slipped from 2011 to 2019. 

A June 2009 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found that 

the modularity program has cost more and yielded fewer benefits 

than were originally estimated. The Army has had to add personnel to support the additional units created within the BCTs. 

Planned increases in personnel end-strength were unlikely to be 

sufficient to fully support the force structure of the Army’s originally planned growth to 76 brigade combat teams (BCT). For this 

reason and others, Secretary Gates has announced that Army active component growth would be limited to 45 instead of 48 BCTs. 

The CBO also found that although modular BCTs might require 

less time to prepare to respond to an overseas contingency than the 

divisional brigades they replaced, they require roughly the same 

amount of time to transport their equipment overseas. Finally, the 

CBO noted that costs to carry out the initiative have grown beyond 

the initial estimate of $21.0 billion and may total more than $140.0 

billion through 2013. 

In its November 2008 study of Army modularity, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) observed that the Army is making 

progress in fielding its modular units but does not have an objective, results oriented, fully funded plan to equip and man this new 

structure to documented authorization levels. Despite assuming increased modular unit capabilities based on new or soon to be available technologies, Army projections to achieve its aggregate equipping requirements are based partly on the indefinite use of some 

older equipment. The GAO also found that the Army does not have 

a comprehensive plan to evaluate the modular force. 

The Army argues that they will have completed conversion to the 

initial modular force by fiscal year 2013 and that plans upon which 

the conversion is based must be flexible to reflect the changing requirements and timelines of an Army at war. Modular transformation, the Army argues, is a ‘‘process’’ rather than an endstate. The Army must constantly adapt to evolving threats and capture these requirement changes in structure and equipment. The 

Army uses the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model and 

equipment substitution to manage the prioritization, fill, and cost 

of equipment and personnel to modular units. With respect to evaluation of its modular designs, the Army says that initial modeling 

revealed that modular units would be at least as good as the units 

it replaced and that comprehensive and continuous evaluations 

have yielded over 130 design updates since 2004. 

The committee is concerned by these wide differences between 

the CBO, GAO, and Army and their assessments of the analytical 

basis, performance, and cost of the Army’s modular unit transformation. Measureable, stable, and documented requirements and 

then unit fill for personnel and equipment are a fundamental starting point to an assessment of any unit’s readiness and evaluation 

of its capability to conduct the missions for which it is designed. 

Modular BCTs have been rotating into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. Based on this combat experience, the Army notes 

it has made over 130 design updates. However, none of these upVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
107 

dates appear to challenge or change the core structural design of 

the modular combat brigade. For example, the heavy and light 

modular combat brigades each have two maneuver battalions (typically infantry or armor) assigned. Yet many BCT commanders in 

Iraq or Afghanistan will use the reconnaissance squadron as a 

third maneuver unit instead of the mission for which it is designed. 

At a hearing on military land power in March this year, the Subcommittee on Airland received testimony from a former BCT commander in Iraq arguing that the modular heavy and light brigades 

should add a third maneuver battalion. 

The committee notes that unresolved questions about the operational capabilities and personnel and equipment requirements of 

the Army’s modular unit structure makes it difficult to reliably estimate requirements for end-strength and equipment modernization and procurement. Accordingly, the committee believes a comprehensive study by an independent, federally funded research and 

development center is merited. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 

The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA) for land forces readiness, but included 

no funds for the Generation III Extended Cold Weather Clothing 

System (ECWCS). The Generation III ECWCS weighs 25 percent 

less than previous clothing systems, uses 33 percent less space in 

a soldier’s pack, and integrates near infrared technologies into the 

garments reducing detection at night. The committee recommends 

an increase of $8.0 million in OMA for Generation III ECWCS. 

Funding for strategic planning and implementation of interagency training, education, and research in support of 

rule of law operations 

The committee recognizes that in current stability operations 

abroad, training, education, and implementation of methods to support adherence to the rule of law within emerging governmental 

systems has been a goal assigned the highest priority. Currently, 

there is no adequate means to facilitate training, research, and collaboration across interagency and non-governmental lines. Designation of a properly qualified and resourced site is quickly needed for 

the development of strategic plans and updated training in collaborative, rule of law efforts to develop an understanding of potential 

new, broad-based approaches. Accordingly, the committee authorizes $0.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, to support 

strategic planning and interagency training in rule of law efforts. 

Navy 

Naval aviation depot maintenance 

The budget request included $35.0 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $1.0 billion for aviation maintenance. The Navy identified risk and a shortage in its unfunded 

requirements for aviation depot maintenance for fiscal year 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
108 

The Navy has stated this unfulfilled maintenance requirement is 

executable. The committee recommends an increase of $195.0 million in OMN for aviation depot maintenance. 

Naval ship depot maintenance 

The budget request included $35.0 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) but only $4.2 billion for ship depot 

maintenance. The Navy identified risk and unfunded requirements 

for ship depot maintenance for fiscal year 2010. The Navy has stated this unfunded maintenance requirement is executable. The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in OMN for ship 

depot maintenance. 

Transfer of funding from overseas contingency operations 

to base budget 

The committee observed that the Navy had to cancel ship maintenance availabilities during the last fiscal year due to a shortage 

of Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), funding. The committee believes funding needs to be transferred from overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding to the base budget to avoid 

underfunding ship maintenance in fiscal year 2010. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends a transfer of $568.8 million to OMN 

from the OCO to the base budget. 

United States Joint Forces Command National Program for 

Small Unit Excellence 

The budget request included $8.75 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for the creation of the National Program for Small Unit Excellence. The committee is encouraged by 

the United States Joint Forces Command’s (JFCOM) intent to develop a comprehensive approach to small unit excellence by drawing upon academia, lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and 

the conferences held to date. However, the committee is concerned 

that additional steps must first be taken to evaluate small unit 

training doctrine in order to ensure the most efficient and effective 

training is developed by the appropriate agencies. The committee 

believes training standards, established irregular warfare doctrine, 

and integrated requirements are currently lacking. Additionally, 

the committee is not yet convinced the Center’s focus is not already 

an established training focus within the individual Services, and 

that the center may be duplicative rather than complementary. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in OMN and $3.0 of Other Procurement, Navy for the National 

Small Unit Center for Excellence. The committee authorizes $10.0 

million in research, development, test, and evaluation for efforts related to the proposed National Program for Small Unit Excellence. 

The committee directs that none of these funds be used for the establishment of a center. The committee directs that the funds be 

used by the Commander of JFCOM to invest in initiatives that will 

support the development of small unit capabilities in the services, 

and that the priority for funding shall be initiatives that are costshared with a service or defense agency. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
109 

Gun depot overhauls 

The budget request included $448.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy, (OMN) for weapons maintenance, but provided 

no funds for Mk 45 Mod 5′′ gun depot overhauls. The committee 

recommends an increase of $12.0 million in OMN for Mk 45 Mod 

5′′ gun depot overhauls. 

Naval Strike Air Warfare Center training 

The budget request included $477.3 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for specialized skill training, but provided no funds for the Naval Strike Air Warfare Center (NSAWC). 

Additional funding will provide equipment, survey data, simulator 

support, range development, curriculum development, and computer technician support to the NSAWC for direct training of joint 

terminal attack controllers and pilots in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee recommends an increase of $850,000 in OMN for the NSAWC. 

Marine Corps 

Advanced load bearing equipment 

The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but 

provided no funds for the advanced load bearing equipment 

(ALBE). The load bearing system assists marines in carrying large 

amounts of equipment, ammunition, and weapons needed in training and combat. Increased operational tempo in Afghanistan often 

causes equipment to wear out faster than anticipated. The ALBE 

upgrades the load bearing system with more rugged pouches, 

packs, and slings. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 

million in OMMC for ALBE. 

Marine Corps shelters 

The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but 

provided no funds for the Family of Shelters and Tents (FST). The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMMC for 

FST. 

Cold Weather Layering System 

The budget request included $730.9 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but included no funds for the Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS). 

The CWLS is a unique system, is often consumed by use during a 

single deployment, and is an urgent operational need in theater. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OMMC 

for CWLS. 

Air Force 

Mission essential airfield operations equipment 

The budget request included $2.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for base operations, but provided no 

funds for the equipping and replacement of mission essential airVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
110 

field operations equipment. The committee recommends a $3.5 million increase in OMAF to provide mission essential equipment and 

replacement equipment. 

National Security Space Institute 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the 

National Security Space Institute (NSSI) in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), line 090. The committee supports the 

National Security Space Institute as the center for space professional and educational training for all the military services. Currently the NSSI is not able to accommodate all those who need to 

take these classes. The committee is also concerned that that the 

joint focus of the space education might be lost as a result of the 

recent decision to split up the NSSI. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretaries of the 

other military services, to report back to the committee on the impacts of the division of the NSSI and whether all space training 

and education requirements are being met. The committee will continue to review the management of the space cadres in each service. 

Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements 

Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office 

based on the services’ civilian personnel end strength data as of 

April 2009, projects that the Department of the Air Force’s civilian 

personnel costs is overstated for fiscal year 2010 by $588.1 million. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $538.1 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force for overstatement of 

civilian personnel pay. 

Defense-wide 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 

The budget request included $36.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). This represents a decrease 

from the $39.8 million requested for fiscal year 2009. 

The committee believes the military departments should continue 

to pursue the voluntary agreements with other public and private 

entities as authorized under section 2684a of title 10, United States 

Code, to prevent the development or use of property that would be 

incompatible with the mission of an installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements that might 

otherwise result in current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military bases. 

Since Congress provided the authority in 2003, over 130 projects 

have been initiated conserving more than 76,000 acres at 53 military installations in 23 states. More can be done to protect important military test and training assets and to preserve the land 

around installations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in 

OMDW for REPI and directs that the military departments give 

priority to projects that benefit critical mission training sites that 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
111 

have the greatest potential to prevent or reduce encroachment 

through the creation of compatible use buffer zones. 

Authorization of appropriations for Director of Operational 

Energy 

The committee created the Director of Operational Energy Plans 

and Programs in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). The committee 

therefore authorizes $5.0 million of Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-wide, for the Director of Operational Energy Plans and 

Programs. 

Defense readiness reporting system 

The budget request included $7.4 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the acceleration of the development and deployment of 

DRRS. The committee remains aware of the challenges associated 

with the accurate, reliable, timely measurement, and reporting of 

the readiness of military forces. The current readiness reporting 

system, Global Status of Resources and Training System 

(GSORTS), is inadequate to meet the demands of the force rotation 

strategy that supports operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around 

the world. The Department of Defense (DOD), Joint Staff, and the 

United States Joint Forces Command continue to lack the visibility 

of deployed and non-deployed forces’ capabilities and readiness required to manage global military commitments. 

In June 2002, DOD issued a directive establishing the DRRS, a 

capabilities-based, adaptive, near-term readiness reporting system. 

The directive requires all components to align their readiness reporting processes with DRRS. Since then, we understand DOD and 

the services have taken a number of steps but that DRRS is not 

yet fully operational and aligned with the services’ reporting processes. 

The committee supports the Department’s development of DRRS 

as an important management modernization and replacement for 

GSORTS. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reports that significant shortfalls remain in the implementation of 

DRRS, stability of requirements, adequacy of testing, and overall 

management and oversight of the program. The committee remains 

concerned that the Department has yet to successfully plan, organize, resource, execute tests, and full deployment for DRRS within 

the Global Command and Control System. 

Additionally, the committee is aware that GAO has not reported 

the technology readiness of DRRS. Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks & Information Integration) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Personnel & Readiness, to jointly undertake a review of the technological maturity of the critical technology elements and systems integration issues related to DRRS. A report to the defense committees shall be delivered no later than 120 days after enactment of 

this act. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
112 

Commercial imagery acquisition 

The budget request included classified amounts in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, in the National Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency budget to initiate the competitive acquisition through the 

commercial data providers (CDPs) of the equivalent capacity of two 

1.1–meter electro-optical (EO) imaging satellites to augment the capacity currently under contract. This decision was made because 

the Department of Defense (DOD) wants to ensure that at least 

moderate resolution EO capability is available to the warfighter 

from multiple satellites with minimum risk. In deliberations within 

the administration on the broad national and defense reconnaissance architecture, DOD had proposed building satellites with 1.5– 

meter apertures, on the grounds that these would be adequate to 

meet DOD needs, would be more affordable, and, by buying more 

of them, would be more survivable and sustainable from a space 

protection and industrial base perspective. 

The Secretary of Defense recently testified to the Senate that the 

Department made the decision to acquire more 1.1–meter imagery 

rather than higher quality 1.5–meter imagery due to concerns 

about schedule and technology risk with the ‘‘upper tier’’ of capability that the Director of National Intelligence recently decided to 

acquire. After careful consideration of the schedule and risks involved, the committee concludes that DOD can prudently substitute 

one 1.5–meter commercial-class satellite for one of the 1.1–meter 

satellite equivalents proposed in the budget request. 

The committee believes that it is within the capacity of the commercial imagery industry to produce one or more 1.5–meter satellites before the period of risk identified by the Secretary. The 

committee believes furthermore that, by acquiring the capability of 

a 1.5–meter satellite, DOD will substantially reduce the consequences to the Nation in the event that the schedule and technical risks identified by the Secretary are realized. 

The committee, therefore, directs the Director of the National 

Geospatial Intelligence Agency to competitively acquire the equivalent capacity of at least one 1.5–meter commercial imagery satellite 

on a schedule keyed to the risks identified by the Secretary. The 

committee will leave it to DOD to decide whether to buy the satellite outright or to acquire capacity through the CDPs. The committee recommends, however, that DOD operate the acquired satellite or capacity through one or more of the CDPs, on mutually 

agreeable terms. The committee encourages the Department to 

structure these commercial imagery acquisitions to minimize cost 

and technical and schedule risk. 

The committee fully supports the administration’s decision to 

build a secure and responsive tasking, processing, and dissemination capability, enabling for the first time routine use of commercial imagery for time-sensitive operational support and intelligence 

analysis, as opposed to mapping, charting, and geodesy. 

The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense provide to 

the congressional intelligence and defense committees prior to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 an estimate of any additional funds that may be required to 

acquire 1.5–meter imagery. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
113 

Department of Defense Education Activity Operation & 

Maintenance funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department of 

Defense Education Activity Operation and Maintenance account includes the following changes from the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels are discussed in 

greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............... 30.0 

Assistance for schools with military students due to rebasing ...... 10.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .............................. 5.0 

Military community support for autism ........................................... 5.0 

Total ............................................................................................. 50.0 

Undistributed bulk fuel savings 

Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office 

shows that the Department of Defense overstated its funding requirements for refined oil for fiscal year 2010 by $611.0 million, 

based on updated economic assumptions for the cost of refined oil 

as of May 2009. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $596.2 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, undistributed, for fuel savings. 

Software licenses 

The committee recommends a general reduction of $50.0 million 

from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for funds intended 

for payment of new software license fees. Elsewhere in this report, 

the committee highlights a number of concerns about the Department’s coordination and management of software license purchases, 

and directs a review of the issue. 

Army Reserve 

Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve 

The budget request included $106.5 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces system readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in 

OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and abatement. 

Army National Guard 

Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard 

The budget request included $99.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an increase 

of $3.6 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion protection and 

abatement. 

Controlled humidity protection 

The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for air operations, but provided no funds for controlled humidity protection. The Government 

Accountability Office has found that the readiness and safety of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
114 

military equipment can be severely degraded by corrosion. The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars annually to address 

corrosion damage that could be avoided with increased prevention 

and mitigation technology such as controlled humidity protection. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in OMANG 

for controlled humidity protection. 

Unobligated Balances 

Unobligated balances decrease in funding 

The committee is aware that the challenges associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan create a difficult fiscal management 

situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps. However, the 

Department of Defense continues to under-execute its Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the active and reserve 

components. According to the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), the military departments had $1.2 billion in average yearly 

unobligated balances for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. 

The committee recalls that 4 years ago the Department began to 

reduce the O&M portion of its annual funding request and futureyears defense program before submission to Congress based, in 

part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances. The Department also underfunds important maintenance and activities in its 

annual request in anticipation of supplemental appropriations. 

Whether made available in annual or supplemental appropriations, 

the Department and services must ensure that taxpayer dollars are 

appropriately managed to provide the best possible readiness for 

the force and avoid the expiration of obligating authority. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease to the Department’s 

O&M accounts, as follows: Operation and Maintenance, Army, 

$350.0 million, Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $150.0 million, 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, $150.0 million, and Operation and Maintenance, defense wide, $150.0 million. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army organizational structure and personnel requirements 

The committee has over the years expressed its concern with the 

limited dwell time for members of the United States Armed Forces 

committed to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The committee is especially concerned with 

the limited dwell time for the soldiers of the Army’s active component. In hearing testimony earlier this year before the Subcommittee on Airland, witnesses raised questions about whether or 

not the Army was appropriately large enough or organized for the 

types of conflicts in which it is currently engaged or may become 

engaged in the future. 

The Secretary of Defense recently recommended capping the 

growth of the active Army at 45 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), 

rather than the previously planned goal of 48 BCTs as part of the 

end strength growth begun in 2007. The Secretary essentially argues that the Army is over-structured and undermanned or that 

there are more units than there are soldiers to fill them. Rather 

than increase end strength beyond the 547,400 planned, the SecVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
115 

retary has chosen to limit the growth of unit structure. The committee requires additional information from the Department of Defense in order to more comprehensively assess the manning, readiness, operational implications, and risk of this decision. 

The committee therefore directs that the Secretary of the Army, 

not later than March 1, 2010, shall submit to the congressional defense committees an unclassified report, with a classified annex as 

appropriate, that provides an analysis, comparison, and projected 

impacts of limiting the Army’s active component to 45 rather than 

48 BCTs through 2012. This analysis shall include an assessment 

of how the decision to keep the Army’s active component at 45 combat brigades would impact unit time-deployed to time-at-home ratios for the Army’s BCTs, as well as the time-deployed to time-athome ratios by officer and enlisted grade for the 30 military occupational specialties in highest demand to support OEF and OIF. In 

making these analyses, the report shall discuss the risks associated 

with these time-deployed to time-at-home ratios and requirements 

projections in the event that demand for U.S. forces does not significantly diminish through 2012. 

The committee is also concerned that the demand for non-standard units, such as security assistance training teams and headquarters staffs, puts additional stress on standard unit readiness 

and high demand military skills. Accordingly, the committee directs that the report shall include an analysis and projected impacts of personnel requirements for ad hoc units and individual 

augmentees through 2012 to meet requirements to support OEF 

and OIF, including: 

• Individual Army augmentees deployed to support staff requirements at higher headquarters echelons such as Multinational 

Forces-Iraq, Multinational Corps-Iraq, the International Security 

Assistance Force, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, and other relevant 

echelons above brigade of U.S. forces supporting OEF and OIF. 

• Specialized organizations that have been created to meet 

theater-specific requirements in OEF and OIF, such as Task Force 

ODIN, Multinational Security Transition Assistance Command, 

Provincial Reconstruction teams, and other ad hoc organizations 

created for specific theater requirements in OEF and OIF. This 

would also include units tasked with a security force assistance 

mission or other non-standard task-organized units such as military transition teams, advisory and assistance brigades, and other 

units uniquely organized, equipped, trained, and deployed for OEF 

and OIF. 

• The impact on BCTs of junior and mid-grade officer and noncommissioned officers demand to fill ad hoc staff or unit requirements in theater. 

Within 30 days of the completion of this report, the Secretary of 

Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing steps that the Department of Defense has taken 

and plans to implement that will improve the time-deployed to 

time-at-home ratios for the Army active component. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
116 

Continued assessment of plans for contracting support in 

combatant command operational plans 

The report to accompany the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an 

assessment of the implementation of the directives contained in the 

Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 3133.03C. The assessment was to evaluate the contracting support plans for combatant command operations plans as reported in the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) as required by section 482 of title 

10, United States Code. 

However, preliminary indications from GAO suggest that combatant command planning related to contracting support for contingency operations has been slow to start and applied unevenly. 

The committee continues to believe that contingency plans must 

have comprehensive, detailed, and realistic contracting support 

plans that meet the operational requirements of the force before, 

during, and after combat operations. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include with 

each QRRC submitted in 2010 and 2011 an identification of the 

operational plans that require a contracting annex, for which plans 

the contracting annex has been drafted, and for which plans the 

contracting annex has been approved. 

The GAO assessment, as originally required by the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417), is due to congressional defense committees 

not later than September 30, 2009. The committee extends the 

deadline to March 30, 2010. The committee expects the Department will cooperate with GAO’s review of the contracting annexes 

of these plans. 

Cost-benefit analysis of depot maintenance workload associated with AV–8B Harrier weapons system 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives identifying each alternative the Secretary 

is considering for the performance of AV–8B planned maintenance 

interval events and concurrent aircraft modifications. The report 

shall include a justification for the alternative selected or recommended by the Secretary, including a cost-benefit analysis and 

an explanation of how the alternative is consistent with the requirements of chapter 146 of title 10, United States Code (including the requirement for the Department of Defense to identify and 

maintain core logistics capabilities). 

Depot-level maintenance and repair 

Depot maintenance is a key part of the total Department of Defense (DOD) logistics system that helps to support the readiness 

and sustainability of major weapon systems. Section 2466 of title 

10, United States Code, states that not more than 50 percent of the 

funds made available to a military department or defense agency 

for depot-level maintenance and repair may be used to contract for 

performance by the private sector. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
117 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics has explained the Department’s interpretation and application of this requirement as follows: 

‘‘Although the current section 2460 excludes the procurement of major modifications or upgrades of weapon systems that are designed to improve program performance 

from the definition of depot maintenance and repair, DOD 

depot maintenance, repair, and modification of weapon 

systems are typically done in an integrated manner. Under 

these circumstances, it is difficult to separately account for 

and track individual labor elements, although there can be 

a clear accounting between labor and parts. For this reason, in reporting 50/50 compliance since 1998, DOD has included the installation of all modification and upgrades, 

while excluding the acquisition of associated parts.’’ 

The committee directs the Department to coordinate with the 

committee before implementing any significant change to the interpretation and application of the requirements of section 2466. 

Pollution Prevention Program 

The committee believes it is important for the Department of Defense and the military departments to continue to pursue pollution 

prevention strategies and technologies that will further reduce 

waste streams, protect people and the environment, meet regulatory requirements, and, ultimately, save money in terms of conservation, compliance, and cleanup. The committee notes that the 

President’s budget request includes a substantial decrease in pollution prevention funding in fiscal year 2010 as compared to the previous few years. While some of the costs associated with pollution 

prevention can be absorbed in the Department’s environmental 

compliance program, and some of the onus for developing pollution 

prevention strategies can be passed to the acquisition programs 

through green procurement initiatives, it is important to maintain 

a robust pollution prevention program that will identify strategies, 

technologies and techniques, and that maintains clear lines of responsibility and accountability for program management. The committee urges the Department to develop appropriate mechanisms to 

ensure that the Department: (1) funds pollution prevention projects 

that are likely to result in significant savings or significantly improve the Department’s environmental performance; and (2) can 

track investments in pollution prevention and the payback from 

such investments, regardless of the source of funding for such investments. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(119) 

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 2010, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2009 authorization 2010 request 2010 recommendation 

Army .......................................................................................... 532,400 547,400 547,400 

Navy .......................................................................................... 326,323 328,800 328,800 

Marine Corps ............................................................................. 194,000 202,100 202,100 

Air Force .................................................................................... 317,050 331,700 331,700 

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) authorized an active-duty end 

strength for the Army of 532,400 and for the Marine Corps of 

194,000. Additional authority was provided in section 403 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2008 (Public Law 

110–181) to increase active-duty end strength for fiscal years 2009 

and 2010 to 547,400 for the Army and 202,000 for the Marine 

Corps. 

The committee has supported the growth in the Army and Marine Corps over the past several years, and commends those services for achieving their planned growth almost 3 years ahead of 

schedule. With demand for forces unlikely to lessen in 2010, the 

higher end strengths are essential, especially in view of the growing number of individuals who are unable to deploy due to injuries, 

disease, or for other reasons. The committee remains concerned 

about the level of stress on the force that repeated and lengthy deployments are causing. In recent years, all of the services have 

seen their suicide rates increase, and the Army in particular has 

seen a troubling rise in the number of suicides this year. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Army will cease 

its use of stop-loss by January 2010. While the committee applauds 

this change in policy, it recognizes that additional personnel may 

be required to continue to ensure the cohesiveness and readiness 

of units preparing to deploy. The active component dwell time target of 2 years home for each year deployed is still not being met, 

even with the increased forces. The committee urges the Department of Defense to implement personnel policies that will improve 

dwell time and the quality-of-life of military members and their 

families. 

Meanwhile, the Air Force and the Navy have been reducing their 

active-duty end strengths in recent years. Both services announced 

this year a halt to the planned decline of the size of their active 

forces, and the Administration’s 2010 budget submission reflects 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
120 

this decision. The committee supports the higher end strengths of 

the Air Force and Navy requested in the budget that more accurately reflect what those services require to accomplish their missions. 

The committee supports the Administration’s request and recommends active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2010 for the 

Army of 547,400, the Marine Corps of 202,100, the Navy of 

328,800, and the Air Force of 331,700. 

Additional authority for increases of Army active duty end 

strengths for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 (sec. 402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to increase the Army active-duty end strength 

by 30,000 over 2010 levels in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, provided 

the Secretary requests the necessary funding in the fiscal year 

2011 and 2012 budget requests. 

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 2010, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2009 authorization 2010 request 2010 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 352,600 358,200 358,200 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 

The Navy Reserve ...................................................................... 66,700 65,500 65,500 

The Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 39,600 39,600 39,600 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 106,756 106,700 106,700 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 67,400 69,500 69,500 

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 2010, as shown 

below: 

Fiscal year 

2009 authorization 2010 request 2010 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 16,170 16,261 16,261 

The Navy Reserve ...................................................................... 11,099 10,818 10,818 

The Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 2,261 2,261 2,261 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 14,360 14,555 14,555 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 2,733 2,896 2,896 

The committee recommends Active Guard and Reserve end 

strength increases of 91 in the Army Reserve, 195 in the Air National Guard, and 163 in the Air Force Reserve over levels approved for fiscal year 2009. The committee supports increases in 

full-time support manning consistent with requested levels to increase readiness in the reserve components. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
121 

The committee also recommends a decrease of 281 from the fiscal 

year 2009 level in the Navy Reserve, consistent with reductions in 

the overall Navy Reserve end strength. The committee recommends 

end strengths for the Army National Guard and the Marine Corps 

Reserve equal to the fiscal year 2009 level, consistent with the 

budget request. 

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 2010, 

as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2009 authorization 2010 request 2010 recommenda- tion 

The Army Reserve. .................................................................... 8,395 8,154 8,395 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 27,210 26,901 27,210 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 10,003 10,417 10,417 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 22,452 22,313 22,313 

Fiscal year 2010 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, 2010, as 

shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2009 authorization 2010 request 2010 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ....................... 1,600 2,500 1,600 

The Air National Guard of the United States ........................... 350 350 350 

The Army Reserve ..................................................................... 595 836 595 

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................... 90 90 90 

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, 2010, as shown below: 

Fiscal year 

2009 authorization 2010 request 2010 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 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
122 

Report on trainee account for the Army National Guard 

(sec. 416) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit to the congressional defense committees a report assessing the need to establish a trainees, transients, holdees, and students account within the Army National 

Guard. The report would be due no later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

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 2010. The provision would also 

authorize funds to be contributed to the Medicare-Eligible Retiree 

Health Fund. 

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] 

Increase in military pay raise ........................................................... 350.0 

Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program ............... 59.0 

Travel reimbursement for suspended training ................................ 5.0 

Mental health assessments ............................................................... 3.0 

Substance abuse study ....................................................................... 1.5 

Reduction of unobligated military personnel balances .................... ¥818.5 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥400.0 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(123) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Modification of limitations on general and flag officers on 

active duty (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 525, 526, and 721 of title 10, United States Code, to implement section 506 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to modify 

the distribution and authorized end strengths of general and flag 

officers on active duty. 

Revisions to annual report requirement on joint officer 

management (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 667 of title 10, United States Code, to align the reporting requirement on joint officer management with joint programs and 

policies of the Department of Defense, and delete the requirements 

to report on the joint qualifications of critical occupational specialty 

officers and the analysis of assignments of officers after designation 

as joint qualified officers. 

Grade of Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 156(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require that an officer 

appointed to serve as Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff be appointed in the regular grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half). 

Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force (sec. 

504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 805 of title 10, United States Code, to establish in statute the 

positions of Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains in the Air Force. 

The Chief of Chaplains will be appointed in the grade of major general, and the Deputy Chief of Chaplains will be appointed in the 

grade of brigadier general. Both officers will be appointed for a 

term of 3 years. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Report on requirements of the National Guard for non-dual 

status technicians (sec. 511) 

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 House of Representatives regardVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
124 

ing the Department’s utilization of National Guard non-dual status 

technicians. The report would be due no later than 180 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle C—Education and Training 

Grade of commissioned officers in uniformed medical accession programs (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2114(b) and 2121(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize medical students attending the Uniformed Services University 

of the Health Sciences and students participating in the armed 

forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 

Programs who have prior commissioned service to serve, while on 

active duty, in pay grade O–1, or in pay grade O–2 if they meet 

specified promotion criteria prescribed by the service secretary. The 

provision would also amend section 2004a of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide that an officer detailed as a student at a medical 

school would serve on active duty in the same grade with the same 

entitlement to pay as specified in section 2114(b) of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Expansion of criteria for appointment as member of the 

Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University 

of the Health Sciences (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2113a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize appointment of individuals with experience in the fields of health 

care, higher education administration, and public policy as members of the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University 

of the Health Sciences. 

Detail of commissioned officers as students at schools of 

psychology (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of each military department to detail up to 25 commissioned officers each year as students at accredited schools of psychology for 

training leading to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in clinical 

psychology. To be eligible for such training, an officer must agree 

to serve on active duty for 2 years or in the reserves for three years 

for each year of training. 

The committee recommends this provision in response to testimony of senior military and civilian leaders in the Department of 

Defense that there is a significant shortfall in military behavioral 

health personnel. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
125 

Subtitle D—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the armed 

forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance 

program to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The committee also recommends authorization of $10.0 million in OMDW, for assistance 

to local educational agencies with significant changes in enrollment 

of military and civilian school-aged dependent children due to base 

closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 532) 

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 the Department of Defense’s assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe disabilities. 

Two-year extension of authority for assistance to local educational agencies with enrollment changes due to base 

closures, force structure changes, or force relocations 

(sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 7703b(b)(4) of title 20, United States Code, to extend for 2 

years, from September 30, 2010, to September 30, 2012, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide financial assistance 

to local educational agencies with enrollment changes due to base 

closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. 

Permanent authority for enrollment in defense dependents’ 

education system of dependents of foreign military 

members assigned to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 923a of title 20, United States Code, to make permanent the 

temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense in section 

571 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to enroll on a space-required, tuition-free basis a limited number of dependents of foreign 

military members who are assigned to the Supreme Headquarters 

Allied Powers, Europe, in the Department of Defense dependents’ 

education system in Mons, Belgium. 

The provision would also provide that the Secretary of Defense, 

in determining the methodology for the proper number of foreign 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
126 

students, would do so with the advice and assistance of the geographic combatant commander with jurisdiction over Mons, Belgium. 

Study on options for educational opportunities for dependent children of members of the armed forces who do not 

attend Department of Defense dependents schools (sec. 

535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to conduct a study on options for educational opportunities 

that are, or may be, available for dependent children of members 

of the armed forces who do not attend Department of Defense dependents’ schools when the public elementary and secondary 

schools are determined to be in need of improvement pursuant to 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 110–117). The 

study would examine such options as vouchers, education using the 

internet, Charter schools, and other options considered appropriate 

by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Education. 

Sense of Senate on the Interstate Compact on Educational 

Opportunity for Military Children (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate to: commend the 21 States that have successfully enacted the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity 

for Military Children; encourage all remaining States to enact the 

Interstate Compact; recognize the importance of the components of 

the Interstate Compact, such as improved transfer of educational 

records; recalculation of grades to consider the weights of different 

educational institutions; waiver of specific courses required for 

graduation if similar course work has been satisfactorily completed 

in another educational institution; recognition of an appointed 

guardian as a custodial parent while the child’s parent or parents 

are deployed; and express support for States to develop a State 

Council to help coordinate the participation of local government 

agencies, local education agencies, and military installations in implementing the Interstate Compact. 

The committee notes that the Interstate Compact can help ease 

the burdens placed on military families by permanent change of 

station moves, and that military personnel have stated that their 

childrens’ education is a major factor in overall force readiness. 

Subtitle E—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters 

Independent review of judge advocate requirements of the 

Department of the Navy (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish an 

independent panel to review the judge advocate requirements for 

the Department of the Navy. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint a panel of five private citizens to conduct a study of judge advocate responsibilities, assignment and career development policies, and management and organizational 

practices of the Navy and Marine Corps, with the objective of deVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
127 

termining the required number of judge advocates needed to fulfill 

the Department’s legal mission. 

The committee has noted with concern the increasing demands 

being placed upon judge advocates in the Navy and Marine Corps 

to fulfill critically important wartime legal roles with minimal or 

no commensurate increases in judge advocate manning or billets. 

In the Navy, the committee believes that the level of risk associated with ‘‘doing more with less’’ has reached its limit. The committee applauds the Navy’s initiative to conduct a Center for Naval 

Analyses study in 2008 to examine this issue and believes this 

study will be highly useful to the independent review panel. 

The Marine Corps has not conducted a similar study, and the 

committee expects the independent panel to address Marine Corps 

manpower requirements issues. The committee has questioned the 

Marine Corps’ decision not to create additional judge advocate billets or increase judge advocate manning as part of its overall 

growth in active-duty end strength of 27,000 since 2007. The committee is concerned that proposed near-term solutions, such as immediate termination of assignments of judge advocates to career 

enhancing, non-legal billets, will adversely affect the professional 

development and promotions of mid-level Marine Corps judge advocates, and urges a more deliberate response. 

The committee believes that it is essential for the legal arm of 

the Navy-Marine Corps team, with the full support of senior line 

leaders, to work more cooperatively to address the legal requirements for judge advocates in the Department of the Navy. The 

committee will look to the independent panel, the Secretary of Defense, and Navy leadership to provide positive recommendations 

and planning for implementation in this regard. 

Subtitle F—Military Family Readiness Matters 

Additional members on the Department of Defense Military 

Family Readiness Council (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1781a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to mandate the addition of two members to the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council. One representative would be from the National Guard, and the other representative would be from a reserve 

component other than the National Guard. Both representatives 

would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense. 

The committee recognizes the important roles played by members of the Guard and reserve components and their families and 

believes it is critical that their views be represented on the Council. 

Comprehensive plan on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance use disorders and disposition of substance abuse offenders in the armed forces (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the programs and activities of the Department of Defense for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of substance use disorders and the 

policies of the Department relating to the disposition of substance 

abuse offenders and to submit a report of this review to the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
128 

mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act. After completion of this review, the provision would require a study by an independent entity on substance use disorder 

programs for members of the armed forces. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a comprehensive 

plan to improve these programs, activities, and policies to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

Military community support for children with autism and 

their families (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a policy and program to provide broad-based community support to military children with autism and their families. The provision would also require the Secretary to conduct one or more pilot projects to evaluate the effectiveness of various programmatic approaches that include research, early intervention, evidence-based therapeutic services, education and training for family members, coordination with 

local educational programs, vocational training, and family counseling. 

The committee expects this program to be carried out by the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and 

Family Policy, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The intent of this provision is to provide 

a broad base of support services to military families who face the 

challenge of meeting the needs of family members with autism. 

Medical and therapeutic services available under TRICARE represent an important part of that support, but families’ needs are 

even greater. 

To further this effort to increase military community support for 

children with autism and their families, the committee expects the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to ensure that 

military and civilian health care providers have access to current 

information on evidence-based practices for early diagnosis and 

treatment of autism spectrum disorders, to enable families to receive diagnoses and begin therapy, treatment, and education elements as early as possible. 

Reports on effects of deployments on military children and 

the availability of mental health care and counseling 

services for military children (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to undertake a comprehensive assessment of 

the impacts of military deployment on dependent children of service members, to include separate assessments on preschool-age 

children, elementary-school age children, and teenage or adolescent 

children. The Secretary would be required to submit a report of the 

findings and recommendations stemming from the assessment to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
129 

The committee notes that to date, the Department of Defense has 

not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of deployments on military children, and believes that the Department 

needs such an assessment in order to create relevant, effective 

counseling and resiliency programs for military children. 

The committee is also concerned that military families cite lack 

of timely access to health care, and specifically to mental health 

care, for military children as a major family readiness issue. Therefore, the provision would also require the Secretary to conduct a 

comprehensive review of the mental health care and counseling 

services available to children of service members, to include: the access to, quality, and effectiveness of such services in military treatment facilities, family assistance centers, under TRICARE, and in 

Department of Defense dependents’ schools; whether the status of 

a service member as active duty or reserve affects the access of a 

military child to such services; and whether and to what extent 

waiting lists, geographic distance, and other factors may obstruct 

military childrens’ receipt of such services. The Secretary would be 

required to submit a report on the findings of the review to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, and to utilize those findings to develop a comprehensive 

plan to improve access to quality mental health care and counseling services for military children and adolescents. 

Report on child custody litigation involving service of members of the armed forces (sec. 555) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on judicial cases involving child custody disputes in which the service of 

a deployed or deploying member of the armed forces, active or reserve, was an issue in a child custody dispute. 

The committee is aware of concerns that have been raised about 

the vulnerability of single parent service members who have custody of minor children to litigation by non-custodial parents seeking a change in custody in connection with an operational deployment. The committee believes that comprehensive factual information regarding State courts’ actual experience with this issue and 

an assessment of the scope and nature of this problem is essential 

before any federal preemption of State legislation would be warranted. This is particularly true in view of the resolution by the 

American Bar Association issued in February 2009, strongly recommending against federal legislation regulating child custody disputes. 

A separate provision contained elsewhere in this Bill would express the sense of the Senate that a properly prepared and coordinated family care plan is necessary for members of the armed 

forces who have custody of a child pursuant to a court order or separation agreement. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
130 

Sense of Senate on preparation and coordination of family 

care plans (sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that a properly prepared and coordinated family care plan is essential for service members who have custody of 

a child pursuant to a court order or separation agreement. 

A separate provision contained elsewhere in this Bill would require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

reported cases involving child custody disputes in which the service 

of a member of the armed forces, active or reserve, was an issue 

in the child custody dispute. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

Deadline for report on sexual assault in the armed forces by 

Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military 

Services (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 576(e)(1) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) to require 

the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services 

to submit its report to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries 

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force not later than December 1, 2009. 

Under section 576 of Public Law 108–375, the Defense Task 

Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service 

Academies was renamed as the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services upon completion of its work on June 

30, 2005. This renamed task force was required to conduct an examination of matters relating to sexual assault in cases in which 

members of the armed forces are either victims or commit acts of 

sexual assault. However, the task force did not initiate this examination until August, 2008, more than 3 years later. 

While significant advances have been made by the Department 

in responding to the problem of sexual assaults in the armed 

forces, the committee remains concerned about continuing reports 

of lack of uniformity by the military departments in implementing 

Department of Defense sexual assault policies, inadequate data collection, and the inability of the Department of Defense to develop 

standardized reports of incidents of sexual assault which can be 

used to measure progress. 

The committee looks forward to receipt of the report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services and 

encourages expedited review of the findings and recommendations 

of this task force and implementation of appropriate recommendations. Further delays in completing this important work must be 

avoided. 

Clarification of performance policies for military musical 

units and musicians (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the restrictions on performances in competition with local musicians and 

the authority of military musical units and musicians to support official events that are funded, in whole or in part, by appropriated 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
131 

or non-appropriated funds. The provision would also authorize military musical units and musicians to provide musical requirements 

for official military events, including events held off a military installation, performances that foster cooperative relationships with 

other nations, and events sponsored by or for a military welfare society. 

Items of Special Interest 

Alaska Territorial Guard 

In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public 

Law 106–259), Congress appropriately recognized service by Alaska 

Territorial Guard members during World War II and required that 

service in the Alaska Territorial Guard be credited toward eligibility for veteran benefits. The committee is aware that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service credited some Alaska Territorial Guard members’ service toward retired pay, only to later inform them that the service credit was contrary to law. The committee agrees with the decision of the Secretary of the Army to 

waive recoupment of amounts erroneously paid, and urges the Secretary to explore other ways to honor and recognize the service of 

members of the Alaska Territorial Guard. 

Cultural and language proficiency 

The committee supports efforts to improve the foreign language 

and cultural proficiency of our servicemen and women. Reports 

from the 9/11 Commission and the Government Accountability Office have found that shortages in foreign language and cultural capabilities exist across the U.S. Government. The committee believes it is critical to the missions of the Department’s geographic 

combatant commands and intelligence components that U.S. service members and the Department’s civilian employees understand 

the cultures in which they may operate and are capable of engaging individuals in their native language. As the Department works 

to increase these skill sets to meet the requirements of current and 

potential future engagements, the committee urges the Department 

to consider existing language and cultural curriculum at universities and colleges throughout the Nation as an opportunity to augment existing Department operated programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act on any plans to leverage these programs in a manner that compliments the Department’s organic language and cultural training programs. 

Inspector General review of post-trial processes for courtmartial record preparation and appellate review within 

the Department of the Navy 

The committee believes that action is long overdue to analyze 

and correct longstanding problems with the post-trial processes for 

preparation of records of courts-martial and for appellate review of 

court-martial convictions within the Department of the Navy. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) in 

the case of Toohey v. United States, 60 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2004), 

established standards for assessing whether convicted service memVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
132 

bers had been denied due process under the Fifth Amendment to 

the Constitution as a result of denial of reasonable appellate processing of their cases. Since then, a succession of Navy and Marine 

Corps cases, including, but not limited to, United States v. Jones, 

61 M.J. 80 (C.A.A.F. 2005); United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365 

(C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 

2006); United States v. Dearing, 63 M.J. 478 (C.A.A.F. 2006); and, 

most recently, the unpublished case of United States v. Foster have 

addressed extremely lengthy delays in appellate review. In the Foster case, the conviction of a Marine was set aside because his conviction for rape ‘‘could not withstand the test for legal and factual 

sufficiency.’’ This Marine had been confined for more than 9 years 

awaiting appellate review of his case. These cases demonstrate that 

cognizant legal authorities in the Department of the Navy have not 

taken necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the resources, 

command attention, and necessary supervision have been devoted 

to the task of ensuring that the Navy and Marine Corps post-trial 

military justice system functions properly in all cases. 

The committee recognizes that a series of Navy Judge Advocates 

General have attempted to overcome the systemic challenges associated with preparing, authenticating, tracking, and forwarding 

records of trial from numerous commands entrusted with courtmartial convening authority and ensuring that the appellate review 

process comports with all legal standards. The committee is convinced, however, that intervention is needed by departmental civilian and military leaders to definitively resolve these chronic administrative problems and that action should be taken immediately to 

resolve these issues. 

The committee directs the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, to review the systems, policies, and procedures currently in use to ensure timely and legally sufficient post-trial reviews of courts-martial within the Department of the Navy. The review shall discuss 

and summarize the history of problems experienced by the Navy 

and Marine Corps since 1990 in ensuring appropriate appellate review of general and special courts-martial and curative measures. 

The principal focus of the review shall be to determine whether 

the resources dedicated to post-trial processes, the information and 

tracking systems in use, the applicable procedures and policies, and 

the monitoring and supervision of actions of participants in the 

military justice system aimed at ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of law are adequate to accomplish the requirements for due process of law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and applicable case law. This review should be provided to the Secretary of the Navy no later than January 1, 2010. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps, no later than March 1, 2010, to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a written report on the findings and recommendations of the Department of Defense Inspector General and actions 

taken or planned to address these findings and recommendations. 

The Secretary shall include in the report his assessment of the adequacy of (1) the Department of the Navy’s processes and resources 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
133 

dedicated to affording legally sufficient post-trial review of all Navy 

and Marine Corps cases, (2) the systems in place to track courtsmartial cases, and (3) means to ensure accountability and compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

and applicable case law. 

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense’s request for 

funding of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for National 

Guard and reserve members and their families, as required by section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181), in both the request for supplemental funding for fiscal year 2009 and the base budget request for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee seeks assurance that the funds, although requested in multiple component accounts, support robust joint programs that provide reintegration and support services to members 

and their families regardless of military affiliation. The committee 

also seeks assurance that required activities are occurring in all 

phases of the deployment cycle: pre-deployment, deployment, demobilization, and post-deployment-reconstitution. 

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 October 1, 2009 on the initial implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in fiscal 

year 2009 and plans for further implementation in fiscal year 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(135) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL 

BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2010 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 3.4 percent, 0.5 

percent above the pay raise recommended in the budget request, to 

become effective January 1, 2010. 

Comptroller General of the United States comparative assessment of military and private-sector pay and benefits 

(sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study comparing military pay and benefits with comparable private-sector 

pay and benefits. The provision would also direct the Comptroller 

General to report to the congressional defense committees on the 

study by no later than April 1, 2010. 

The committee remains committed to ensuring that the pay and 

benefits of military members provide appropriate compensation for 

military service recognizing the demands on military personnel in 

wartime and the sacrifices they and their families make. One metric for assessing the sufficiency of pay and benefits is pay comparability between military members and similarly situated private-sector employees, accounting for age, education, and experience. As the military services compete with the private sector for 

the most talented personnel in the workforce with unique skills 

and qualifications, military pay and benefits must be at levels necessary to attract and retain outstanding individuals for military 

service. Over the past 9 years, Congress has significantly enhanced 

the pay and benefits of military members, and the committee looks 

to the Comptroller General to provide a pay comparability analysis 

in light of these enhancements. 

Increase in maximum monthly amount of supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income members with dependents (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 402a of title 37, United States Code, to increase the maximum 

monthly amount of the supplemental subsistence allowance from 

$500 to $1,100 per month. The provision would also require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2010, a plan, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to ensure members of the armed forces and 

their dependents need not rely on the Supplemental Nutrition AsVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
136 

sistance Program (SNAP) under chapter 51 of title 7, United States 

Code, for nutritional assistance. 

The committee remains concerned about reports that a number 

of service members and their dependents still receive assistance 

under SNAP to meet their basic nutritional needs. The supplemental subsistence allowance was designed to alleviate the need 

for service members and their households to rely on SNAP. The 

committee is troubled that the Department and the services do not 

track members receiving assistance under SNAP, even as the number of members receiving the supplemental subsistence allowance 

remains low. The committee hopes that the plan submitted under 

this section will provide a path for eliminating all service members 

and their households from eligibility for assistance under SNAP. 

Benefits under Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program for certain periods before implementation of program (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

service secretaries, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 

Defense, to provide any member or former member of the Armed 

Forces up to $200 for each day of administrative absence that such 

member would have earned between January 19, 2007 and the 

date of their respective service’s implementation of the Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program, had the program 

been implemented during that time. The authority would expire 1 

year from the date of enactment. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

Reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus; 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; the special 

pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority units; 

the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service; the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service; the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus for 

persons with prior service; and income replacement payments for 

certain reserve component members. 

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; accession and retention 

bonuses for psychologists; the accession bonus for registered 

nurses; incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; special pay for 

Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime 

specialties; the accession bonus for dental officers; the accession 

bonus for pharmacy officers; the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties; and the accession bonus 

for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
137 

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service; the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

Extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 

614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members; the general 

bonus authority for officers; the special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for nuclear officers; the special aviation incentive pay 

and bonus authorities; and the special health professions incentive 

pay and bonus authorities. The provision would also extend for 1 

year the authority to pay hazardous duty pay; assignment pay or 

special duty pay; the skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus; and 

the retention bonus for members with critical military skills or assigned to high priority units. 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 

bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for active members; the enlistment bonus; the accession bonus for new officers in 

critical skills; the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage; the incentive bonus for 

transfer between armed forces; and the accession bonus for officer 

candidates. 

Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the health professions referral bonus and 

the Army referral bonus under sections 1030 and 3252 of title 10, 

United States Code, respectively. 

Special compensation for members of the uniformed services with combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 439 to title 37, United States Code, to authorize special 

compensation for members of the uniformed services with combatrelated catastrophic injuries or illnesses who have been certified by 

a licensed physician to be in need of assistance from another person to perform the personal functions required in everyday living. 

The amount of the special compensation would not exceed the 

amount of aid and attendance authorized by section 1114(r) of title 

38, United States Code. 

The committee remains concerned about spouses and other family members who continue to shoulder an extraordinary burden in 

caring for catastrophically injured service members, many of whom 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
138 

will survive their injuries but will require a lifetime of special care. 

Many spouses and family caregivers give up their jobs and careers 

to care for service members under these circumstances. The special 

monthly compensation that would be authorized by this section is 

intended to compensate designated family caregivers for the dedicated time and assistance they provide to catastrophically injured 

service members. Further, the committee recognizes that caregivers 

who leave employment to care for a wounded or ill service member 

may as a result forgo health care coverage, and encourages the secretaries of the military departments to utilize existing legal authority under the Secretarial Designee program to provide urgent medical and dental care for caregivers during any period in which the 

service member is receiving special compensation authorized by 

this section. 

Temporary authority for monthly special pay for members 

of the armed forces subject to continuing active duty or 

service under stop-loss authorities (sec. 618) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

service secretaries to pay, until June 30, 2011, stop-loss special pay 

in an amount not to exceed $500 per month for service members 

on active-duty whose enlistment or period of obligated service is extended, or whose retirement is suspended, pursuant to sections 123 

or 12305 of title 10, United States Code, or any other authority 

that permits the involuntary extension of an enlistment period or 

period of obligated service, or the suspension of retirement eligibility. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Travel and transportation allowances for designated individuals of wounded, ill, or injured members of the uniformed services for duration of inpatient treatment (sec. 

631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 411h of title 37, United States Code, to authorize travel and 

transportation allowances for up to three designated individuals to 

be provided, at government expense, up to three roundtrips in any 

60-day period to visit certain wounded, ill, or injured service members for the duration of their inpatient treatment. The provision 

would also clarify the definition of ‘‘seriously injured’’ to include serious mental disorders. 

Travel and transportation allowances for non-medical attendants of seriously wounded, ill, or injured members 

of the uniformed services (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 411h–1 to title 37, United States Code, to authorize travel 

and transportation allowances for designated non-medical attendants of very seriously wounded, ill, or injured service members. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
139 

Travel and transportation allowances for members of the 

Reserve components of the armed forces on leave for 

suspension of training (sec. 633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 411k to title 37, United States Code, to authorize travel and 

transportation allowances for reserve component service members 

on active duty for more than 30 days to travel from a temporary 

duty station to their permanent duty station and back again during 

times when training is suspended at the temporary duty station for 

a period of 5 days or more under circumstances where training of 

reserve component members is suspended. 

The committee believes that this authority is necessary to provide flexibility to service leaders responsible for mobilization training of reservists when circumstances call for suspension of training 

for the benefit of all military personnel involved. 

Reimbursement of travel expenses of members of the armed 

forces on active duty and their dependents for travel for 

specialty care under exceptional circumstances (sec. 

634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide, in exceptional circumstances, reimbursement for the travel expenses of active-duty beneficiaries and 

their dependents otherwise ineligible for reimbursement. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Authority to continue provision of incentives after termination of temporary Army authority to provide additional recruitment incentives (sec. 651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (i) of section 681 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) to authorize the continuation of payment of a recruitment incentive for 3 years from 

the date the recruitment incentive is first provided under the temporary Army authority to provide additional recruitment incentives. 

Items of Special Interest 

Patriot Express 

The committee commends Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM) for its continued commitment to the Patriot Express 

charter flight program. Patriot Express provides a predictable and 

cost effective travel option for official travel to the United States 

from overseas locations, and also supports and raises the morale of 

service members and their dependents by providing space available 

seats for non-official travel at nominal cost. The committee believes 

that the program should continue to be run on a cost-neutral basis 

at the programmatic level, and encourages TRANSCOM to continue to explore ways to improve the program, including by adding 

routes, that can further improve the service and the morale of servVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
140 

ice members and their dependents while ensuring overall programmatic cost-neutrality. 

Travel for active-duty personnel receiving treatment at Department of Veteran Affairs facilities 

The committee remains committed to ensuring that active-duty 

service members receive the very best health care available, including receiving care at medical facilities under the control of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The committee strongly urges 

the Department of Defense to ensure that active-duty service members receiving treatment at VA medical facilities are provided adequate access to care, including necessary transportation, when 

treatment at a VA facility is required or in the best interests of the 

service member. The committee believes the Department of Defense is responsible for ensuring injured service members unable to 

transport themselves receive transportation for medical appointments even when they are receiving care at a VA medical facility. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(141) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program 

TRICARE Standard coverage for certain members of the Retired Reserve, and family members, who are qualified 

for a non-regular retirement but are not yet age 60 (sec. 

701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 1076e to chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to extend eligibility for TRICARE Standard to members of the Retired 

Reserve, who are qualified for non-regular retirement but who are 

not yet age 60 and their dependents. Eligibility would terminate 

when the member becomes eligible for TRICARE coverage as a retiree at age 60. Members would be responsible for paying a premium equal to the total cost of coverage as determined by the Secretary of Defense based on actual program costs. 

Expansion of eligibility of survivors under the TRICARE 

Dental Program (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1076a(k)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the eligibility of surviving children under the TRICARE Dental Program. 

Current law allows survivors to keep this dental coverage for a period of 3 years after the service member’s death. The provision 

would increase the eligibility for surviving dependent children from 

3 years to the longer of the following periods: (1) 3 years; (2) until 

they reach age 21; or (3) until age 23 if the dependent is a fulltime student at age 21 and is or was dependent on the member for 

at least half of their support. The provision would make the dental 

benefit provided to surviving children consistent with the medical 

benefit for which they are already eligible. 

Constructive eligibility for TRICARE benefits of certain persons otherwise ineligible under retroactive determination of entitlement to Medicare Part A hospital insurance benefits (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, to exempt TRICARE 

beneficiaries under the age of 65 who become disabled from the requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B for the retroactive months 

of entitlement to Medicare Part A in order to maintain TRICARE 

coverage. 

Eligible beneficiaries would still be required to enroll in Medicare 

Part B in order to maintain TRICARE coverage for future months, 

but would be considered to have coverage under the TRICARE program for the months retroactive to their entitlement to Medicare 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
142 

Part A. TRICARE would remain the first payer for any claims filed 

during these retroactive months. 

Under current law, if a disabled beneficiary under the age of 65 

receives a determination from the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) that they are retroactively eligible for Medicare Part A, the 

beneficiary is also awarded eligibility for Medicare Part B in the 

month of the SSA’s determination, unless they opt out. The beneficiary is then given the option to retroactively enroll and pay the 

applicable premiums for Medicare Part B back to the Medicare 

Part A effective date in order to obtain an effective Part B eligibility as of the retroactive date. Failure of the eligible TRICARE 

beneficiary to enroll in and pay the premiums for Medicare Part B 

retroactively to the Medicare Part A effective date results in loss 

of TRICARE eligibility as of the Medicare Part A effective date, 

leaving the beneficiary liable for any health care costs paid by the 

Department of Defense for care received during the retroactive 

months. 

The committee is concerned that inadequate communication with 

disabled service members has lead to circumstances in which some 

have lost health care coverage under TRICARE as a result of declining coverage under Medicare Part B. The committee hopes that 

this provision, coupled with improved communication efforts by the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Social Security 

Administration, and TRICARE will mitigate the risk of any beneficiary opting out of Medicare Part B without a full appreciation of 

the consequences of such action. 

Reform and improvement of the TRICARE program (sec. 

704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to initiate a process of reform and improvement of the TRICARE health care system. 

The committee is aware that the cost of the Defense Health Program will be a focus of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and 

believes that such focus is appropriate. However, of greater concern 

is testimony received from key military and civilian leaders which 

indicates that satisfaction with TRICARE is declining. Too much 

attention has been paid to increasing out-of-pocket payments by retirees, and not enough to repairing persistent operational problems 

that prevent beneficiaries from getting the care that they need, 

such as the lack of availability of TRICARE providers and cumbersome requirements for preauthorization and referral to specialty 

care. Moreover, the fundamental goal of TRICARE to maximize use 

of military hospitals and clinics is not being achieved, as more and 

more care is being purchased in the private sector. Problems with 

access to care in both military facilities and from civilian providers 

needlessly compound the difficulties that military families face during extended periods of deployment. 

The committee believes that Department of Defense beneficiaries 

should receive care that achieves the highest possible levels of 

quality and access, and that the administration of these benefits 

should be on a path of continuous improvement. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
143 

The intent of this provision is to ensure that the Department’s 

focus is not on cost alone, but also achieves the goals of quality and 

access so critical to military personnel and their families. 

In addition, the committee directs the Department to examine 

the costs and levels of coverage available to active-duty and reserve 

members and their families under the TRICARE Dental Program, 

and to consult with beneficiary organizations on needed improvements to the plan. The Secretary of Defense shall submit a report 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives not later than April 1, 2010 on any prospective 

changes to coverage under the dental plan, and in particular, coverage for orthodontics. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation of requirements on the relationship between 

the TRICARE program and employer-sponsored group 

health plans (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later 

than March 31, 2010, on the implementation of the requirements 

of section 1097c of title 10, United States Code, relating to the relationship between the TRICARE program and employer-sponsored 

group health plans. 

Section 1097c of title 10, United States Code, prohibits employers 

or other entities from offering financial or other incentives to retired TRICARE beneficiaries to discourage enrollment in employersponsored group health plans. This provision is intended to assess 

the effectiveness of this prohibition in reducing TRICARE costs. 

Subtitle B—Other Health Care Benefits 

Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces 

deployed in connection with a contingency operation 

(sec. 711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue guidance for the provision of a person-to-person mental health assessment for each service member 

deployed in connection with a contingency operation during the 60– 

day period before deployment, between 90 and 180 days after deployment, and not later than 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months 

after return from deployment. A mental health assessment would 

not be required by this provision for service members who are not 

subjected or exposed to operational risk factors during deployment. 

Enhancement of transitional dental care for members of the 

reserve components on active duty for more than 30 

days in support of a contingency operation (sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1145(a) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the transitional health care benefit for reservists who separate after more 

than 30 days of active duty in support of a contingency operation, 

giving them the same priority for dental care in a military treatment facility as an active-duty member. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
144 

While dental care is currently authorized under the transitional 

benefit, the priority for reservists is that of a dependent. In the 

case of dental care, dependents have access to military dental care 

only on a space available basis. The provision would address the 

concern that many who have served in a contingency operation for 

a year or more have received little or no dental treatment, and ensure that the Department of Defense provides any needed dental 

care that was not provided during deployment prior to their separation. 

Subtitle C—Health Care Administration 

Comprehensive policy on pain management by the military 

health care system (sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive 

policy on pain management. 

The committee recognizes that chronic pain, whether as a result 

of war-related injury or other physical and neurological condition, 

can significantly impact the quality-of-life of service members and 

other military health system beneficiaries. Broader access to high 

quality, evidence-based pain management is needed, based on a 

comprehensive policy which incorporates standards of care, research, outcome measures, technology, and patient and health care 

provider education. 

The committee expects the Secretary to consult with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the development of the policy required 

by this section and to build on the work of the Surgeon General 

of the Army’s initiative on pain management. 

Plan to increase the behavioral health capabilities of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to significantly increase the number of military and civilian behavioral 

health personnel of the Department of Defense by September 30, 

2013. The provision would also require the Secretary to submit to 

the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act, a report setting forth an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of establishing one or more 

military specialties for officers or enlisted members of the armed 

forces as counselors with behavioral health expertise. 

The committee recommends this provision in response to testimony of senior military and civilian leaders in the Department of 

Defense that there is a significant shortfall in behavioral health 

personnel available to meet the mental health care needs of service 

members and their families. The significant increase in the number 

of military and civilian behavioral health personnel should be 

based on a realistic assessment of the actual requirements for such 

personnel. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
145 

Department of Defense study on management of medications for physically and psychologically wounded members of the armed forces (sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the management of 

medications for physically and psychologically wounded service 

members, and to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the study 

by April 1, 2010. 

Subtitle D—Wounded Warrior Matters 

Report on cognitive rehabilitation for members of the 

armed forces with traumatic brain injury (sec. 731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the evidence to be required from a long-term, integrated 

study on treatment strategies for cognitive rehabilitation for service members who have sustained traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in 

order to permit the Department of Defense to determine how receipt of cognitive rehabilitation for TBI of a service member could 

be reimbursed as a health care benefit. 

The committee notes that the Brain Injury Association of America has recognized the benefits of cognitive rehabilitation therapy 

for brain injuries, and that there is a growing body of scientific evidence to support its efficacy. Additionally, cognitive behavioral 

therapy is provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because of the potentially large and continuing demand for services 

for moderate to severe TBI for wounded warriors, research on the 

evidence necessary for the Department of Defense to determine 

whether cognitive rehabilitation should be covered under the 

TRICARE benefit is justified and necessary. 

Department of Defense task force on the care, management, 

and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured 

members of the armed forces (sec. 732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a task force to assess the effectiveness of the policies and programs developed and implemented 

by the Department of Defense and each of the military departments to assist and support the care, management, and transition 

of recovering wounded, ill, and injured service members. 

The task force would submit a report to the Secretary of Defense 

on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, to include identification of ways in which the Department and the services may 

more effectively address matters relating to the care, management, 

and transition of wounded warriors, and support for their families. 

Elements of the report would include review and assessment of: 

case management; effectiveness of the Interagency Program Office 

in achieving fully interoperable electronic health records; staffing of 

wounded warrior transition units; support and assistance to navigate the disability evaluation system; effectiveness of the Senior 

Oversight Committee; effectiveness of various centers of excellence; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
146 

support for family caregivers; availability of vocational training to 

aid in transition to civilian life; availability of services for traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder; and overall 

coordination between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in these efforts. 

The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit the task 

force report, together with an evaluation of the report, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 90 days after receiving it. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the secretaries of the military departments, to 

develop a plan to implement the recommendations of the task force 

and to submit the plan to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 6 months 

after receipt of the task force report. 

The committee urges the task force to examine the unique characteristics of the United States Special Operations Command’s 

Care Coalition as well as similar programs to identify best practices that can be shared throughout the Department, and to examine the extent to which the Department of Defense, in collaboration 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs, has established public 

and private partnerships to assist in the training of medical case 

management personnel needed to support returning wounded, ill, 

and injured service members, as noted in Senate Report 110–335 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General study on Department of Defense efforts to minimize and track military service hearing loss 

The committee notes with concern that according to the National 

Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, hearing loss is the 

single most common individual disability among the veteran population, and tinnitus is the third most common. While the nature of 

military service can make exposure to excessive noise unavoidable, 

hearing loss that may result from such exposure is preventable. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study on Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to minimize 

and track hearing loss that occurs, or may occur, as a result of 

military service. The study shall include an assessment of: 

(1) DOD efforts to protect service members against disabling 

hearing loss, including efforts to identify service members’ exposure levels; provide service members with hearing loss protection devices and provide the training and oversight of their 

use; and monitor for potential hearing loss; 

(2) DOD efforts to analyze its hearing-related injury and illness data to detect whether, and where, better prevention is 

needed; 

(3) the role of the DOD Hearing Conservation Program in 

these efforts; 

(4) the status of DOD’s compliance with section 721 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), which required the Secretary 

of Defense to establish a center of excellence in the prevention, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
147 

diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing 

loss and auditory system injury; and 

(5) the nature and extent of information sharing between DOD 

and the Department of Veterans Affairs to help inform DOD’s hearing loss prevention efforts. 

The Comptroller General shall submit a report on the findings of 

the study to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives not later than September 30, 2010. 

Continued Department of Defense and military department 

support for suicide prevention 

At its Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on March 18, 2009, 

the committee received testimony from senior military leaders from 

each of the services on efforts to prevent military suicides. The 

committee commends the leadership of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and the military departments for their efforts to increase 

awareness of the risks of suicide by military members. Despite 

these efforts, however, rates of military suicide do not appear to be 

decreasing. The number of soldiers who have committed suicide 

through May 2009 surpasses the Army’s numbers at this same 

point last year. 

The committee understands that it will take time to see results 

from these programs, but maintains that DOD and the services 

must intensify their efforts, especially those aimed at reducing the 

stigma associated with seeking mental health care. Elsewhere in 

this bill, the committee recommends a provision that would require 

DOD to substantially increase the number of behavioral health personnel available to treat mental health conditions using both existing and new authority for accession and retention of mental health 

personnel. The Department must continue to consider and explore 

new ideas and approaches to prevent military suicides. In doing so, 

the committee encourages DOD and the services to continue their 

work with national and other federal partners in order to mitigate 

this national public health problem. 

Congress has been supportive of national suicide prevention efforts for many years, establishing the national Suicide Prevention 

Resource Center, providing federal funding for youth suicide prevention programs and early intervention, and establishing the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. A witness from the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) testified to the Subcommittee on Personnel that the Lifeline is being utilized by veterans and service members alike. 

The committee urges DOD and the services to continue to work 

with these congressionally funded suicide prevention initiatives to 

assist in their efforts to prevent suicide and suicidal behavior in 

the military. The committee also encourages continued, and if appropriate, increased, collaboration with other federal agencies engaged in suicide prevention activities, such as the National Institute of Mental Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS, 

and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
148 

Help for wounded, ill, and injured service members 

More than a year ago, Congress enacted changes in law to improve care and support for America’s wounded, ill, and injured 

service members. The Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181)) provided broad new authorities for treatment of and research in traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder, support for families, and improvements to the decades-old 

disability evaluation system. The legislation sought to ensure that 

the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) worked collaboratively to support wounded service 

members in their transition to civilian life. 

The committee commends the President and the Secretary of Defense for including funding for wounded warrior programs in the 

base budget request for fiscal year 2010 and believes that while 

much progress has been achieved since enactment of the Wounded 

Warrior Act, more needs to be done. 

The committee has received testimony from extraordinary American heroes who have suffered wounds such as multiple amputations and severe traumatic brain injury, and from their spouses. 

We have learned that multiple programs created to manage health 

care and benefits for the wounded often lead to frustration for 

those they are intended to help, and to diffusion of responsibility 

for results. It is clear that for the seriously ill and injured, the continuum of care remains difficult to navigate, the disability evaluation system remains an intimidating and at times adversarial process, and treatment options for traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress disorder, and other psychological health conditions remain limited. 

Elsewhere in this bill the committee recommends the establishment of a Department of Defense task force to assess the effectiveness of DOD, VA, and service policies and programs now in place 

to assist and support the wounded. The committee has also recommended legislation requested by the President to provide supplemental income to service members to assist caregivers of seriously 

injured and ill service members, and to enhance transportation for 

those supporting wounded warriors, as well as provisions to increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health providers. 

The committee expects the DOD/VA Strategic Oversight Committee to immediately address other issues identified by wounded 

service members and their families: 

(1) Establish performance and accountability standards for 

warrior transition units; 

(2) Streamline the assignment of case managers so that 

there is clear accountability and a single point of contact for 

the complex needs of the seriously ill and injured; 

(3) Provide temporary internship programs for wounded warriors similar to the Operation Warfighter Program in non-federal entities to assist in learning new skills for future civilian 

employment; 

(4) Ensure equitable access to veterans benefits for seriously 

injured service members who remain on active duty; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
149 

(5) Expand or combine screening for traumatic brain injury 

and post traumatic stress disorder prior to deployment; 

(6) Ensure that VA medical facilities have access to electronic medical and demographic data for service members who 

transition to the VA for care; 

(7) Modernize the antiquated disability evaluation system; 

(8) Increase combat-related medical research and rapidly 

apply its findings to life-saving diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation; 

(9) Rapidly implement the programs and research mandated 

for the Vision Center of Excellence; 

(10) Examine and make recommendations on means to facilitate in-vitro fertilization services for severely wounded service 

members, including how such services may fall under Department of Defense regulations implementing section 1631 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181); and 

(11) Examine the feasibility of ensuring bi-directional sharing between DOD and the VA of clinical information regarding 

mental health screenings. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report no later 

than September 30, 2009 on the status of completion of these actions, and to identify any area in which additional legislation would 

be required in order to effect these or additional improvements in 

the care, management, and transition of wounded, ill, and injured 

service members. The committee further directs the Secretary to 

report by September 30, 2009, on the capabilities for electronic exchange of medical data, identifying each DOD and VA facility that 

has such capability as of that date and the types of data that are 

electronically shared. 

Report on case management services for TRICARE beneficiaries with severe mental health conditions 

The committee is aware that case managers can play an important role in the coordination of complex medical and dental care for 

TRICARE beneficiaries. Case management is a feature in public 

mental health systems, typically involving coordination of client 

services by a professional case manager to ensure continuity of care 

and accountability for service provision. The committee recognizes 

that case management may improve the effectiveness of mental 

health care in terms of: reduced cost of care; fewer crisis and hospital admissions; reduced length of hospital stay; improved mental 

health symptoms; better continuity of care from hospitalization to 

community services; improved ability of patients to function in the 

community; and increased patient and family satisfaction with 

care. The committee notes that for behavioral health patients, case 

management is in many cases not a covered TRICARE benefit. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the efficacy and cost of case management services for TRICARE behavioral health clients with serious mental health problems, and to examine such variables as cost of care, crisis and hospital admissions, 

length of stay for hospitalizations, change in mental health symptoms and functioning, use of community behavioral health services, 

community service drop-out rate, and patient and family satisfacVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
150 

tion with care. The committee directs the Department of Defense 

to submit a report on this assessment to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later 

than April 1, 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(151) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Contract authority for advanced development of prototype 

units (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to include a contract line item or an 

option to extend a contract for advanced research for a limited period of time, or for the production of a limited number of prototype 

units. This authority, which was requested by DOD, would provide 

a temporary ‘‘bridge’’ between the time that a program is no longer 

eligible to receive science and technology funding and the time that 

a new contract can be awarded for advanced component development, or production, on the basis of full and open competition. 

Justification and approval of sole-source contracts (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from awarding a sole-source contract 

for an amount exceeding $20.0 million, unless the contracting officer has determined in writing that the use of a sole-source contract 

is in the best interest of DOD and the written justification on 

which such determination is based has been approved by an appropriate reviewing official. 

Subtitle B—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Reporting requirements for programs that qualify as both 

major automated information system programs and 

major defense acquisition programs (sec. 811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Department of Defense flexibility to address programs that qualify as 

both major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) under chapter 

144 of title 10, United States Code, and as major automated information system (MAIS) programs under chapter 144A of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Under the provision recommended by the committee, the Secretary of Defense could designate such a program to be treated only 

as a MDAP or only as a MAIS program. As a general rule, programs that require the development of customized hardware would 

be designated as MDAPs, while programs that do not require the 

development of such hardware would be designated as MAIS programs. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
152 

Funding of Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 

Development Fund (sec. 812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

funding mechanism established for the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) in section 1705 of title 10, 

United States Code, to: (1) require that credits to the DAWDF be 

based on amounts expended for contract services from amounts 

available for operation and maintenance funds; (2) authorize the 

transfer of certain unobligated balances to the DAWDF, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts; (3) reduce the amount of required credits to the DAWDF by the amount of any direct appropriations or unobligated balances transferred to the DAWDF; (4) 

make the remittance of amounts to the DAWDF subject to the 

availability of appropriations for that purpose; and (5) adjust the 

amounts required to be credited to the DAWDF to reflect the funding requirements of the hiring plan announced by the Secretary of 

Defense. 

Enhancement of expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition workforce positions (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) clarify 

the expedited hiring authority for defense acquisition workforce positions enacted in section 833 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), 

as requested by the Department of Defense; and (2) extend the expedited hiring authority through 2015, to help meet the goal announced by the Secretary of Defense to increase the size of the acquisition workforce by 20,000 government acquisition professionals 

by 2015. 

Treatment of non-defense agency procurements under joint 

programs with the Department of Defense under limitations on non-defense agency procurements on behalf of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that a 

contract entered by a non-defense agency for the performance of a 

joint program conducted to meet the needs of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and the non-defense agency shall not be considered 

a procurement of property or services for the Department of Defense through a non-defense agency, for the purposes of section 

801(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 101–181), which limits the authority for such 

procurements. Section 801(b) of Public Law 101–181 is intended to 

address DOD use of contracts entered by other agencies to place orders for products or services needed by DOD. It is not intended to 

address cases in which DOD and another agency engage in joint 

programs to achieve purposes common to both agencies. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on training 

of acquisition and audit personnel of the Department of 

Defense (sec. 815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to report to Congress on the effectiveness of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
153 

Department of Defense training for acquisition and audit personnel. 

Subtitle C—Contractor Matters 

Authority for government support contractors to have access to technical data belonging to prime contractors 

(sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to provide access to technical data 

delivered under a DOD contract to a support contractor, to enable 

the support contractor to furnish independent and impartial advice 

or technical assistance to DOD in support of DOD’s management 

and oversight of the contract. The provision requires the support 

contractor to make a series of commitments, including exposure to 

criminal, civil, administrative, and contractual penalties, to ensure 

that such access is not abused. 

Extension and enhancement of authorities on the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 

(sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide a 1- 

year extension for the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, established pursuant to section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), in order to achieve expanded review and investigation 

into wartime contracting consistent with the Commission’s charter. 

The Commission shall continue to receive administrative support 

from the Washington Headquarters Service of the Department of 

Defense and may continue to receive support from other federal 

agencies to facilitate its work. The Department of Defense is directed to provide support to the Commission, on a non-reimbursable basis, for its investigatory work conducted in combat theaters 

including travel and lodging. 

Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue regulations providing that the interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath of hostilities is an 

inherently governmental function that cannot be transferred to private sector contractors. The regulations would become effective 1 

year after the date of the enactment of this Act, to provide the Department of Defense time to comply. 

The interrogation of detainees entails the exercise of substantial 

discretion in applying government authority and has frequently 

had a significant impact on the life and liberty of the individuals 

questioned. The committee concludes that the conduct of such interrogations is an inherently governmental function that should be 

performed exclusively by military or civilian employees of the Department. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
154 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Central Asia, Pakistan, and the South 

Caucasus (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for the acquisition of 

products and services that are produced in Central Asia, Pakistan, 

and the South Caucasus. The provision would require that to exercise the authority the Secretary must determine that: (1) the product or service is to be used by military forces, police, or other security personnel of Afghanistan; or (2) the preference is in the U.S. 

national interest because it is necessary to improve the local market and transportation infrastructure or encourage the states of 

Central Asia, Pakistan, or the South Caucasus to cooperate in expanding supply routes to Afghanistan, and will not adversely affect 

U.S. military operations or the U.S. industrial base. 

Small arms production industrial base matters (sec. 832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review the manufacturing capability and 

capacity of the small arms industrial base and make a determination whether or not to add, modify, or eliminate covered small arms 

makers or weapons as identified in section 2473 of title 10, United 

States Code. The provision would also require the Secretary to provide to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2010 a 

report on the Department’s findings and recommendations. 

The committee notes that small arms makers and weapons covered by section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, were based 

upon a 1994 Army Science Board plan entitled ‘‘Preservation of 

Critical Elements of the Small Arms Industrial Base.’’ The industrial conditions and capabilities related to the manufacture and 

parts supply for military small arms have strengthened since 1994, 

meriting a review by the Secretary of Defense. 

Extension of SBIR and STTR programs of the Department of 

Defense (sec. 833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Department of Defense to execute the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology 

Transfer (STTR), and other associated programs until September 

30, 2023. The committee notes that the SBIR and STTR programs 

have successfully invested in a number of innovative small businesses and funded research and technologies that have contributed 

significantly to the development and deployment of new military 

systems and capabilities. 

The committee believes that a long-term extension of these programs will provide program stability and enable participants in 

both the government and the small business community to better 

plan budgets and programs and enhance overall program effectiveness and efficiency. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
155 

Expansion and permanent authority for small business innovation research commercialization program (sec. 834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make the 

Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) Commercialization Pilot Program permanent and expand its activities to include the Small Business Technology Transfer program. The committee notes that this program was originally established by section 252 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) and has successfully accelerated the 

transition of a number of SBIR technologies into programs of 

record and deployed systems. 

Measures to ensure the safety of facilities, infrastructure, 

and equipment for military operations (sec. 835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to establish appropriate safety 

standards for incorporation into contracts for the construction, installation, repair, maintenance, and operation of expeditionary facilities for use by military or civilian personnel of the Department 

in current and future military operations overseas. 

Over the last 5 years a number of service members have died as 

a result of faulty electrical wiring in facilities in Iraq. In January 

2008, this problem came to the public’s attention when a staff sergeant was electrocuted in the shower. Since that time, the committee has learned of extensive problems with electrical wiring in 

contractor-provided facilities in Iraq. Some of these problems are 

the result of DOD’s failure to conform to a single standard in wiring buildings; some are the result of poor workmanship; and others 

are the result of the use of flawed pre-war electrical systems. 

The Army is working to address these problems by developing a 

common standard for wiring in U.S. facilities in Iraq; bringing on 

a new team of inspectors, master electricians, and fire safety specialists to help assess the scope of the problem with existing wiring; and directing the contractor to correct the deficiencies identified. 

The committee believes that many of the electrical hazards that 

the U.S. military has experienced in Iraq could have been avoided 

if the Department had addressed this issue more systematically 

from the outset. 

Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item breakout list (sec. 836) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), which requires the Secretary of Defense to 

submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees 

listing essential items, assemblies, and components of military systems and identifying where they are produced. The committee has 

been unable to identify a purpose for this reporting requirement. 

Defense Science Board report on rare earth materials in the 

defense supply chain (sec. 837) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Defense Science Board to report to Congress on the usage of rare 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
156 

earth materials in the supply chain of the Department of Defense. 

The report would address the extent to which weapon systems may 

become dependent on rare earth materials supplied by sources that 

could be interrupted. 

Items of Special Interest 

Contractor reimbursement for environmental remediation 

costs 

The committee is aware that certain Department of Defense 

(DOD) contractors are reimbursed for the remediation of environmental damage resulting from Cold-War era programs through indirect cost accounts (such as overhead accounts). The contractors 

contend that this funding approach results in substantially higher 

indirect cost rates for some contractors than for others, undermining the ability of contractors with substantial clean-up obligations to compete for future contracts. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to review this issue and report to 

the congressional defense committees by no later than 180 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act on whether the current 

reimbursement approach is in the best interest of DOD, or whether 

the Department would be better served by direct funding of allowable environmental remediation costs. 

Knowledge management and decision support systems 

Section 851 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a human capital plan for the acquisition 

workforce. Section 852 of that Act established the Acquisition 

Workforce Development Fund to provide funding needed to implement this plan. 

The committee has received testimony on many of the challenges 

that DOD faces in restoring the acquisition workforce to the levels 

that will be required to conduct effective implementation and oversight of DOD acquisition programs. Just as it is said that the services cannot hire a seasoned non-commissioned officer off the street, 

DOD will be similarly challenged to either hire an experienced 

workforce or grow entry level personnel into journeymen acquisition professionals. 

That challenge places a premium on doing business as intelligently as we can and relying on available technologies to enable 

personnel to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, and 

to train new personnel in the operations of the DOD acquisition 

system. 

Knowledge management is a discipline of management science 

that comprises a range of practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights 

and experiences. Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational 

processes or practice. Knowledge management improvements typically focus on organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons 

learned, and continuous improvement of the organization. KnowlVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
157 

edge management efforts can help individuals and groups to: (1) 

share valuable organizational insights; (2) reduce redundant work; 

(3) reduce training time for new employees; and (4) retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organization. 

The committee is aware that there are commercial providers who 

can support such organizational challenges as DOD is facing in rebuilding the acquisition workforce. The committee does not see 

such systems as replacing workforce personnel, but as a potential 

complement to and enhancement of DOD’s implementation of its 

human capital plan. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees with the submission 

of the fiscal year 2011 budget request on how such knowledge management and decision support systems could contribute to implementing DOD’s human capital plan and improving the effectiveness of the acquisition workforce. 

Licensing fees for enterprise resource planning software 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is currently acquiring enterprise resource planning (ERP) software 

and other software programs for numerous business applications. 

DOD’s operation and maintenance accounts reflect the expenditure 

of hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing fees for the use of 

such software programs. The committee is concerned that the Department may be acquiring the rights to the use of this software 

on a piecemeal basis, paying for the same software over and over 

again. 

In other similar circumstances, DOD and its components have 

negotiated enterprise-wide agreements to ensure that the Department leverages its purchasing power to reduce costs and achieve 

better results for the taxpayers. A similar approach may be appropriate in the case of licensing fees for ERP software and other software programs for business applications. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review this issue in consultation with the Director of the Business Transformation Agency and 

to report the findings and results of the review, including any steps 

that the Department plans to take to negotiate enterprise-wide 

agreements, by no later than March 1, 2010. 

Performance by private security contractors of certain functions in an area of combat operations 

In April 30, 2009, testimony before the Armed Services Committee, the Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Assessments explained the problems that may be caused 

by the use of contractors to perform security functions in a combat 

environment as follows: 

‘‘There’s . . . a principle in the business world that you 

don’t outsource your core capabilities. . . . What’s concerned me most is the outsourcing to some of these security firms of core military capabilities, which is the providing of security, the conducting of security operations. 

. . . [Contractor personnel] weren’t under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice. They move around the battlefield. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
158 

You’re obligated to share intelligence with them on where 

the enemy might be. If they run into trouble, should you 

take your rapid response force and dedicate [it] to their 

support, when some of your uniformed people could be getting in trouble? 

‘‘They don’t operate under the same standards of discipline that soldiers do. Obviously, there have been a number of very unpleasant incidents that are associated with 

contractors sort of operating in poor discipline. If the goal 

is to save money, it’s not clear, over the long term that we 

do save money. . . . In a sense . . . the U.S. government 

was competing against itself for the services of these people . . . engaging in bidding wars with Blackwater, up to 

$150,000 to get a Special Forces NCO [noncommissioned 

officer] to reenlist. . . . It’s not like their motives are the 

same as the U.S. military’s. 

‘‘[F]inally, a lot of the people who seem to be recruited 

for these sorts of positions . . . are people that were rejected by the military. . . . Or foreigners. And these are 

not draftees that . . . once the job’s over, they go back 

home, whether it’s a fellow from Chile or Ukraine or somewhere else. These people, in a sense, are mercenaries, and 

they’re looking for the next war. And, again, it’s not clear 

to me that that’s the sort of capability that we want to 

have after a war is over . . . looking for something else. 

So it was done . . . out of the stress of the moment, the 

necessity of the moment, but I really have grave questions 

about whether this is an approach you want to take when 

it comes to core military capabilities and functions.’’ 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review these 

issues and report to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives within 120 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act on the steps the Department has taken 

and plans to take to address these issues. 

Requirements management for weapon system acquisitions 

before milestone B 

Section 201 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009 requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to make trade-offs 

among cost, schedule, and performance objectives at the time that 

requirements are first established for DOD acquisition programs. 

Section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 requires the Department to establish Configuration Steering Boards to prevent unnecessary and costly 

changes to program requirements for Major Defense Acquisition 

Programs. 

The committee is aware that there may be a gap between the 

time when program requirements are first established and the time 

when those program requirements are formally incorporated into a 

Major Defense Acquisition Program. For this reason, the committee 

directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics to take appropriate steps to monitor and manage 

changes to requirements during this period to ensure that changes 

are not made without appropriate consideration of cost impact. The 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
159 

committee further directs the Under Secretary to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the steps taken or to be taken in this regard 

not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(161) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and Assistant Secretaries of Defense (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize five 

Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense (DUSDs), each of whom 

would serve as the first assistant to an Under Secretary of Defense, 

and each of whom would be subject to confirmation by the Senate. 

These would be the only DUSDs. The provision would also authorize six new Assistant Secretaries of Defense, subject to Senate confirmation, to fill positions currently filled by other DUSDs. 

At present, there are 28 DUSDs in the Department of Defense. 

Only four DUSDs are Senate confirmed, and only two serve as first 

assistants to their respective Under Secretaries. The remaining 

DUSDs serve in Tier 2 or Tier 3 of the Senior Executive Service. 

The Department’s organizational charts even show multiple layers 

of DUSDs reporting to each other. The committee does not believe 

that the Department is well served by the proliferation of DUSD 

positions or by inconsistency in the reporting relationships, pay, 

precedence, and succession among personnel occupying such positions. 

Repeal of certain limitations on personnel and consolidation of reports on major Department of Defense headquarters activities (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal caps 

on the number of personnel employed in headquarters activities of 

the military departments and defense agencies, as requested by the 

Department of Defense (DOD). The Department has determined 

that these caps have prevented it from managing its workforce 

based on workload requirements and considerations of cost-effectiveness and have resulted in the use of contractor personnel to 

perform functions that would be more appropriately performed by 

DOD employees. 

Sense of Senate on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (sec. 903) 

This committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Senate that the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC): (1) offers professional military bilingual instruction that promotes democracy, subordination to civilian 

authority, and respect for human rights; (2) builds partner capacity 

which enhances regional and global security while encouraging respect for human rights and promoting democratic principles among 

eligible military personnel, law enforcement officials, and civilians 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
162 

of nations in the western hemisphere; (3) provides a valuable education and training facility whose curriculum is not duplicated in 

any of the military departments; and (4) is an essential tool to educate future Latin American leaders and improve relationships with 

partner nations that are working with the United States to promote democracy, prosperity, and stability in the western hemisphere. 

Subtitle B—Space Matters 

Provision of space situational awareness services and information to non-United States Government entities (sec. 

911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 2274 of title 10, United States Code, to make the program 

known as the commercial and foreign entities (CFE) program a permanent program. The CFE program was originally started as a 

pilot program to allow the Department of Defense (DOD), working 

through the Air Force, to provide non-United States Government 

entities, including commercial entities, State and local government, 

and foreign governments and entities, space situational awareness 

data so that damage to satellites in space could be avoided. This 

program, which also allows participants to supply data for their 

satellites to DOD, has proved to be very useful to all aspects of the 

space community. 

The recent collision of an Iridium communications satellite and 

a non-functioning Russian satellite has once again brought home 

the consequences of such collisions. The thousands of debris generated by this collision together with the debris generated when 

China shot down an old weather satellite, and the debris already 

in orbit, has increased the risk of damage to satellites and to 

manned space flight. Increasing space situational awareness is a 

high priority program for DOD and the Air Force. The committee 

commends the Air Force for providing additional attention and 

money in the fiscal year 2010 budget to improve space situational 

awareness. 

Plan for management and funding of National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite system program 

(sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Administrator of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to jointly 

develop a plan for the management and funding of the National 

Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental satellite system 

(NPOESS). The plan would include the NPOESS requirements, the 

management structure, and the funding profile for each participating agency. 

The provision would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 

spending more than 50 percent of the Air Force funds available for 

the NPOESS program until the plan has been submitted. 

The provision would also set forth a sense of the Senate that the 

NPOESS program should be maintained. This includes all the sensors and satellites included as part of the program, and as included 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
163 

on each satellite, following the Nunn-McCurdy breach and recertification in June 2006. In addition, all agreed to orbits for satellites 

C1–4 should be maintained as planned as well as the NPOESS 

Preparatory Project (NPP). 

It is also the sense of the Senate that the NPP should be managed and treated as an operational satellite; that the milestone decision authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) should be 

delegated to the DOD Executive Agent (EA) for space; that the EA 

for space should be the DOD member of the NPOESS Tri-Agency 

Executive Committee (EXCOM); that the Program Executive Office 

(PEO) should report directly to and take direction exclusively from 

the EXCOM; that the Administrator of NASA and the Secretary of 

the Air Force should take support from the Goddard Space Flight 

Center and the Space and Missile Systems Center, respectively; 

that the budget for NPOESS should not be less than the estimate 

of the DOD Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG); that 

NPOESS should continue to be managed by a single manager; that 

NPOES should be managed as a long-term operational program; 

and that all requirements should be agreed to by the Secretaries 

of Defense and Commerce and the NASA Administrator and that 

the program should be executed with no modifications to those 

agreed-upon requirements that would increase the cost of schedule. 

The committee is deeply concerned about the current status of 

the NPOESS program, a technically complex expensive program 

that is behind schedule and over budget, with a complicated management structure and funding split between two agencies, DOD 

and the Department of Commerce. The EXCOM recognized these 

many difficulties and chartered an independent review team (IRT) 

to look at the program. As expected, the IRT found NPOESS to be 

a disjointed, barely functioning program with little chance of meeting its goals. 

The committee agrees with many of the findings of the June 

2009 IRT report. Key among the findings is that ‘‘the current 

NPOESS program has an extraordinarily low probability of success’’, that ‘‘NPOESS is being managed with cost as the most important parameter and not Mission Success’’ and that the current 

EXCOM process is ‘‘ineffective and must be fixed.’’ 

The committee also notes that the IRT believes that the NPOESS 

program will need additional funding in fiscal year 2010 and over 

the future-years defense program (FYDP). The committee agrees 

with this finding as well and recommends additional funding for 

NPOESS in the Air Force elsewhere in this report, which the committee expects the Department of Commerce to match. 

In December 2008, the three parties to the NPOESS program 

signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that set out their respective roles and responsibilities to implement the President’s directive for the NPOESS program. This MOA modifies an earlier 

MOA and was put in place to address the problems that led to the 

June 2006 Nunn-McCurdy breach. It is not at all clear that any of 

the three parties have followed the MOA, even though it took 18 

months to negotiate. It would appear that the various disagreements that have been ongoing in this program have continued 

unabated. At best the MOA may have been a speed bump. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
164 

The IRT observed the discord in the program and noted that because the priorities of the parties are misaligned ‘‘the differences 

are straining interagency relationships and are impacting how people do their jobs, even down to the lowest levels of the IPO [Integrated Program Office].’’ The IRT concluded that ‘‘this program will 

not survive if this particular problem is not addressed immediately.’’ 

Unfortunately, NPOESS is a critically important national priority for national security, space weather, weather forecasting, climate research, and emergency response. Given the age of the satellites that the five NPOESS program satellites will replace and 

the limited options available to the parties, there is no alternative 

but to proceed with the program. 

The committee believes that the NPOESS program is in such 

chaos that the President needs to assist the parties with the resolution of their differences. Once this happens, the committee is adamant that the parties stick with the resolution of their disagreements and execute the program, without changing requirements, 

without constantly seeking changes to the sensors, without trying 

to add sensors, or interfering with the agreed upon management 

structure. In other words-agree upon the program and stick with 

it. 

One additional problem not addressed in the IRT is the role of 

the European Space Agency. The Department of Commerce was obligated to enter into an agreement with the European Space Agency to provide for the mid-morning orbit. So far no such agreement 

has been arranged. If an agreement is not forthcoming, the parties 

must build into the management plan a contingency for the midmorning orbit. 

Subtitle C—Intelligence Matters 

Inclusion of Defense Intelligence Agency in authority to use 

proceeds from counterintelligence operations (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) the same authority accorded the 

Military Departments to use proceeds from counterintelligence operations to offset necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in 

such operations under Section 423 of title 10, United States Code. 

When the Secretary of Defense directed the establishment of the 

Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center 

(DCHC) within the DIA, he authorized the DCHC to conduct offensive counterintelligence operations. Since existing statute limits the 

authority to use proceeds from counterintelligence operations to the 

Military Departments, the DCHC would have to return such proceeds to the Treasury. The committee therefore recommends extending this authority to DIA in light of its new mission. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

United States Military Cancer Institute (sec. 931) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a United States Military Cancer 

Institute in the Uniformed Services University of the Health 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
165 

Sciences. The Institute would be authorized to establish a data 

clearinghouse on the incidence of cancer among members and 

former members of the armed forces, and to conduct research that 

contributes to early detection or treatment of cancer among military personnel. The committee recognizes that the United States 

Military Cancer Institute is currently operated and funded by the 

Department of Defense. In the committee’s view, this institution 

should be authorized in statute in order to ensure its continued viability and service to military members and their families. 

Instruction of private sector employees in cyber security 

courses of the Defense Cyber Investigations Training 

Academy (sec. 932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to permit eligible private-sector employees to 

receive instruction at the Defense Cyber Crime Investigations 

Training Academy, operating under the direction of the Defense 

Cyber Crime Center (DC3), on a reimbursable basis. 

The DC3 Training Academy provides computer investigation 

training to forensic examiners, investigators, systems administrators, or any other Department of Defense (DOD) members who ensure Defense information systems are secure. DOD conducts a Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance 

Program with DIB partners to improve the security of DOD information resident in private networks. For this effort to be successful, DOD needs to make training available to industrial partners. 

Items of Special Interest 

Commercial communications anti-jamming study 

The committee notes that substantial portions of military communications utilize commercial communication satellites, which 

have no anti-jam capability. There is generally no requirement 

among regular commercial users for this capability; as a result, 

commercial satellite providers have not included this capability in 

their systems. While there have been only a few incidents of intentional jamming of commercial satellites, the committee is nevertheless concerned about this potential vulnerability, particularly as 

the military’s dependence on commercial satellites continues to 

grow even as new military communications satellites with anti-jam 

capability become available. The committee also notes that there 

has been an increase in the availability of jammers that could jam 

the commercial satellites. Commercial communication satellites 

take 2 to 3 years to design, manufacture, and launch. Because antijam capabilities must be included in the design of a commercial 

satellite from the outset, this is not a capability that can be added 

after a satellite is in orbit. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of the Air Force, to review the benefits and feasibility, including cost, schedule and technical risk, of adding antijam capabilities to commercial communication satellites and to submit a report that would set forth the results of the review to the 

congressional defense committees. The review should also include 

an assessment of the government investment required to support 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
166 

a viable business case for commercial providers to provided protected communication links for long-term lease by the Department 

of Defense as well as other customers; a cost analysis of commercial lease costs with and without protected communications, including any appropriate incentive structures; and an assessment of 

when the first commercial satellite with anti-jam capabilities could 

be launched. This review should also include an assessment of the 

jamming threats to commercial satellites that are used for military 

communications that such anti-jam capability would address. The 

report should be submitted no later than March 1, 2010. 

Deep Space Climate Observatory 

The committee is aware of a satellite that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) built in 2000 but was 

never launched. The satellite, the Deep Space Climate Observatory 

(DSCOVR), was put into storage in 2001. The satellite would measure solar wind data, important to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and other agencies 

including the Department of Homeland Security. The satellite was 

stored with two of the three sensors that would be needed for solar 

wind measurements. NOAA is also looking at the possibility of adding additional earth observation sensors. There is a critical need for 

the geomagnetic storm information that the DSCOVR could provide 

as the current satellite that provides this information was built in 

1997, and has long ago exceeded its design life. The geomagnetic 

storm information is particularly useful to provide sufficient warning to utility companies and satellite operators to execute timely 

procedures to protect their assets. A sudden magnetic storm in 

1989 caused the collapse of the electrical distribution grid over the 

entire province of Quebec, Canada. 

DSCOVR was removed from storage at the end of last year, and 

went through a series of tests to determine its status and condition. NOAA and NASA have recently determined that although 

there were some concerns the condition was generally good. NOAA 

and NASA believe that DSCOVR, with some upgrading and modification, would be suitable to fly. 

The Air Force is very interested in the space weather information 

and is part of an interagency team looking at the possibility of refurbishing DSCOVR and launching it to an orbit referred to as L1, 

about one million miles from Earth on a line with the Sun. If the 

team determines that the satellite can be refurbished and 

launched, they will make a recommendation to the President. Notionally, NOAA and NASA would pay for refurbishing the satellite, 

the Air Force would pay for the launch, and all agencies would receive the data. 

The committee supports this effort to ensure that there is no gap 

in the critical national need for space weather information and directs the Air Force to inform the congressional defense committees, 

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the House of Representatives Committee on Science and 

Technology, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce of the outcome of the study along with the cost 

of the launch as soon as the study is completed. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
167 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance task force 

Secretary Gates established the Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force to meet critical intelligence requirements of deployed forces that the military departments and 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense had failed to address. The 

initial unmet requirements that led the Secretary to establish the 

Task Force had been known and validated for some time, but remained unaddressed because existing programs of record could not 

be accelerated. The Task Force was created to find alternative solutions, outside of the established programs of record and acquisition 

processes, and succeeded in doing so. Secretary Gates and his predecessor have had to take such extraordinary actions previously, to 

address the improvised explosive device (IED) threat through the 

Joint IED Defeat Organization and through the massive Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle program. As with those 

programs, the ISR Task Force has reallocated billions of dollars. 

Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, recently testified that the ISR Task Force could be 

phased out. The committee is skeptical that the need for the ISR 

Task Force has run its course and that it should be disbanded entirely and immediately. Indeed, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is entering a critical phase of the war effort in Afghanistan, where 

the ISR needs are different from, and more challenging than, those 

of Iraq. Moreover, thus far, the Task Force has focused on rapidly 

deploying large quantities of off-the-shelf systems and capabilities; 

there is now a need for more sophisticated capabilities that will require the Task Force, backed by the Secretary and the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs, to organize and field. A prominent example is 

multi-sensor, cross-platform networking, tipping, and cueing, as 

well as networked communications for collection management and 

data dissemination. 

The Task Force is also the focal point for data-driven analyses, 

sponsored by the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), that have been instrumental in determining what ISR 

equipment and procedures are working in theater and which are 

not. The Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Operations 

Research Applications for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance lauded the value and role of this analysis. These studies 

would not have been produced without top-level sponsorship. 

The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs clarify their plans for the Task Force 

and provide a clear recommendation to the congressional defense 

committees prior to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 

The committee requests further that the Secretary assess whether certain rules and authorities under which the Task Force operates are appropriate for the next phase of the conflict in Afghanistan. Under current procedures, the Task Force is required to find 

a service willing to volunteer to sponsor an initiative to respond to 

a theater requirement as a condition for recommending funding for 

a project. The problem has been that, too often, the services have 

not volunteered to solve these problems. The Secretary should determine whether the Task Force should be authorized and given 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
168 

the authority to propose a solution to a need that could be assigned 

to an appropriate organization for execution. 

Finally, the committee notes that the Task Force, with Joint 

Staff and OSD support, is examining the ISR needs of forces engaged in the irregular warfare missions of population protection 

and foreign internal defense that will dominate operations in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned that previous analyses focused on the ‘‘find, fix, finish’’ methodology pioneered by special 

forces in direct action operations in Iraq and elsewhere. The success of these operations, and their measureable outcomes, contributed to widespread adoption of the tactics and equipment used by 

special forces. It may be that the same methods and resources are 

applicable to the operational requirements in Afghanistan, but it is 

important to purposefully find out. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(169) 

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 $4.0 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. 

Audit readiness of financial statements of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish 

statutory objectives for the Department of Defense to achieve by a 

certain date financial statements that are validated as ready for 

audit. The provision would require the Department of Defense to 

develop and maintain a Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan that describes specific actions to be taken to correct financial management deficiencies and meet audit readiness 

objectives. The FIAR plan would be required to tie such actions to 

process and control improvements and business systems modernization efforts described in the business enterprise architecture 

and transition plan required by section 2222 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Temporary reduction in minimum number of aircraft carriers in active service (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would temporarily 

waive the requirement that the Navy maintain 11 active aircraft 

carriers in inventory. This provision would only apply to the time 

between the planned retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN–65) 

and the delivery of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78). The committee has reluctantly concluded that the expense of extending the 

Enterprise beyond her planned retirement date to cover this gap is 

not worth the $1.0 billion to $2.0 billion the Navy would have to 

divert from other important programs to get one extra deployment 

from that ship. 

The committee is taking no position at this time on the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense that the long-term carrier 

force structure should be 10 rather than 11. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
170 

Repeal of policy relating to the major combatant vessels of 

the strike forces of the Unites States Navy (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended by section 1015 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), would require that all new classes of surface combatants and all new amphibious assault ships 

larger than 15,000 deadweight ton light ship displacement have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense 

determines that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest. 

The committee believes that the Navy is already having too 

much difficulty in achieving the goal of a 313-ship fleet without 

adding a substantial increment to the acquisition price of a significant portion of the fleet. Moreover, current acquisition law and the 

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

23) emphasize the need to start acquisition programs on a sure 

footing as a central mechanism by which the Department of Defense (DOD) can get control of cost growth and schedule slippage 

on major defense acquisition programs. Therefore, Congress should 

be loathe to dictate a particular outcome of a requirements process 

before the Department has conducted the normal requirements review. 

The committee expects that the Navy will continue to evaluate 

the integrated nuclear power alternative for any new class of major 

surface combatants, but would prefer that any Navy requirements 

analysis not be skewed toward a particular outcome. 

Sense of Senate on the maintenance of a 313–ship Navy (sec. 

1013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate regarding achieving and maintaining the goal 

of having a 313-ship fleet. 

The committee believes that the Navy can implement certain actions that would help achieve and maintain that goal, including: 

(1) when procuring new classes of ships, avoiding the temptation to move too quickly into production before the technologies and designs are mature enough; 

(2) doing a much better job of achieving the full planned 

service lives of ships and perhaps extending other vessels beyond their expected service lives to keep their unique capabilities in the fleet while the Navy takes the time necessary to develop and field next-generation capability under a low risk program; 

(3) reducing and controlling the total costs of ownership, by 

emphasizing common hull designs, open architecture combat 

systems, and other common ship systems in order to achieve 

efficiency in acquiring and supporting various classes of ships; 

and 

(4) managing the acquisition process better to increase use 

of fixed price-type contracts, maximize competition (or the opVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
171 

tion of competition) throughout the life cycle of its ships, enter 

into multiyear contracts when warranted, and employ an incremental approach to developing new technologies. 

Designation of USS Constitution as America’s ship of state 

(sec. 1014) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate the 

USS Constitution as America’s ‘‘Ship of State,’’ because of this vessel’s representation of our important naval history and maritime 

traditions. 

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities 

Summary 

The budget request for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense totaled approximately $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2010: $537.6 million for international support; 

$212.5 million for domestic support; $169.8 million for intelligence, 

technology, and other activities; and $139.2 million for demand reduction programs. The committee recommends the following fiscal 

year 2010 budget for the Department’s counterdrug activities. 

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL 

POLICY FUNCTION AREAS 

[In millions of dollars; may not add due to rounding] 

Fiscal Year 2010 Counterdrug Request ............................................................................... $1,059.0 

Intelligence: Domestic Law Enforcement ..................................................................... 35.5 

Intelligence: Interdiction .............................................................................................. 56.6 

Intelligence: International ............................................................................................ 101.6 

Interdiction ................................................................................................................... 335.9 

International ................................................................................................................. 205.9 

Investigative ................................................................................................................. 45.2 

Prevention .................................................................................................................... 130.7 

Research and Development: Interdiction ..................................................................... 19.8 

Research and Development: International .................................................................. 4.0 

State and Local Assistance: ........................................................................................ 115.5 

Treatment ..................................................................................................................... 8.5 

Increases: 

High Priority National Guard Counterdrug Programs .................................................. 30.0 

Mobile Sensor Barrier .................................................................................................. 5.0 

Decreases: 

United States European (EUCOM) Command Counternarcotics Support (Project 

Code (PC) 9205) ...................................................................................................... 8.0 

EUCOM Headquarters Support (PC2346) ..................................................................... 0.8 

EUCOM Interagency Fusion Centers (PC2365) ............................................................ 1.0 

Relocatable Over-the Horizon-Radar (PC3217) ........................................................... 5.0 

U.S. Special Operations Command Support to Combatant Commanders (PC6505) .. 0.2 

EUCOM Counternarcotics Reserve Support (PC9215) ................................................. 1.2 

Fiscal Year 2010 Counterdrug Funding Authorized ............................................................. 1,077.8 

High priority National Guard counterdrug programs 

The committee values the contribution that the National Guard 

makes to the national counterdrug effort. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase in $30.0 million for the National Guard 

Bureau’s highest priority counterdrug activities. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
172 

Mobile sensor barrier 

The committee is aware of the growing use of Self Propelled 

Semi-Submersibles (SPSS) by drug trafficking organizations operating out of South and Central America. According to United 

States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), SPSS are responsible 

for at least one-third of all cocaine movement in the transit zone. 

SOUTHCOM and the United States Coast Guard consider SPSS a 

serious threat to U.S. and regional security. As such, the committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the Department to develop, test, and demonstrate a system of autonomous surface vehicles to detect, monitor, and support interdiction of SPSS. 

SOUTHCOM has assigned the SPSS a high priority in its most recent Integrated Priority List submission to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

United States European Command counterdrug activities 

The committee notes that in previous fiscal years the Department has provided robust counterdrug-related funding to United 

States European Command (EUCOM) on the basis of the burgeoning illegal narcotics trafficking trade emanating from West Africa. However, as of the stand up of United States Africa Command 

(AFRICOM) in October 2008 (i.e. fiscal year 2009), AFRICOM is 

provided funding within the budget request for counterdrug activities in West Africa and across the continent. As such, the committee recommends a series of five decreases within the 

counterdrug budget request totaling $11.2 million. Specific project 

code reductions are reflected above and in Title XIV. Moving forward, the committee directs the Department to adjust the funding 

levels for counterdrug related funding dedicated to EUCOM downward significantly to reflect the change in the Unified Command 

Plan, which moved the African continent into the area of responsibility for AFRICOM, and to reflect the greater capacity of our European partners to combat illegal narcotics trafficking. 

Relocatable over-the-horizon radar 

The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 for the 

Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar. The committee is aware of the 

important role this aerial detection asset plays in the western 

hemisphere and believes this asset is critical to situational awareness on the eastern and southern coasts of the United States; however, the committee believes the deployment of this asset is more 

appropriately funded by the military services operations and maintenance budget activities. 

Fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justification documents 

According to the budget justification materials, $537.6 million is 

dedicated to international support, but the budget justification 

books for fiscal year 2010 provide little or no specific information 

as to the level of assistance to be provided to partner nations. In 

preparing congressional budget justification books for fiscal year 

2011, the committee directs the Department to provide information 

relating to partner nations receiving assistance under section 1004 

of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
173 

(FY) 1991 (Public Law 101–510), as amended, and section 1033 of 

the NDAA for FY 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended. At a 

minimum, the committee believes this should include: recipient 

partner nation and recipient within the partner nation’s government; type and amount of support provided; expected duration; and 

U.S. agency executing support. 

Extension and modification of authority to provide additional support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

fiscal year the duration of authority for assistance under section 

1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended by section 1021 

of the NDAA for FY 2004 (Public Law 108–136), section 1022 of the 

John Warner NDAA for FY 2007 (Public Law 109–364), section 

1022 of the NDAA for FY 2008 (Public Law 110–181), section 1024 

of the Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009 (Public Law 110–417); 

would increase the funding limitation under section 1033 of Public 

Law 105–85, as amended, from $75.0 million to $100.0 million for 

fiscal year 2010; and would make technical changes to the reporting requirements to include requiring the Secretary of Defense to 

report to the congressional defense committees on an annual basis. 

The committee is aware of the Department’s request to expand 

the list of countries that could qualify for assistance under section 

1033 of Public Law 105–85, as amended, to include Indonesia, Philippines, Nicaragua, Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. However, 

given the Department’s failure to utilize section 1033 of Public Law 

105–85, as amended, vis-a`-vis the additional four countries provided under the Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009 (Public Law 

110–417), the committee has decided not to expand the list of eligible countries. The committee, however, shares the Department’s 

concerns about the burgeoning illegal narcotics trade in West Africa and urges the Department to expand its authorized activities 

with Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. 

For the first time, the committee has recommended a significant 

increase in the authorized maximum amount the Department can 

expend under this authority without expanding the list of eligible 

countries. The committee has opted to take this action in part as 

a response to the Department’s repeated attempts to leverage other 

authorities (e.g., section 1206 of the NDAA for FY 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163), as amended) that are designated for counterterrorism purposes or stability operations in which the United States 

is a participant. The committee believes that some of the projects 

put forward by the Department under section 1206 of Public Law 

109–163 over the past 2 fiscal years (e.g., Operation Enduring 

Freedom—Caribbean and Central America and the Mexico counterterrorism capabilities) would have been more appropriately funded 

under section 1033 of Public Law 105–85, as amended. 

Further, the committee reminds the Department that joint task 

forces of the Department that provide support to law enforcement 

agencies conducting counterdrug activities may provide similar 

support to law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism 

activities on the condition that any support provided under this 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
174 

section is consistent with all applicable laws and regulations; that 

the support may only be provided in the geographic area of responsibility of the joint task force; and that a verifiable nexus exists between the individuals involved in the illegal narcotics trade and individuals involved in terrorist-related activities. This authority was 

provided under section 1022 of Public Law 108–136 as amended. 

The committee is aware of commanders’ concerns about current 

constraints to the types of support authorized to be provided under 

this authority (e.g. certain types of lethal assistance). As such, the 

committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense-Policy to report 

to the committee 180 days after enactment of this Act on what constraints commanders executing funding under this authority are 

confronting and whether changes to this authority should be considered. 

One-year extension of authority for joint task forces support 

to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority provided in section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), which expires at the end of fiscal year 2009, through fiscal year 2010. The 

authority granted under this provision provides that a joint task 

force of the Department of Defense, which is providing support to 

law enforcement agencies conducting counterdrug activities (e.g., 

Joint Interagency Task Force—South, Joint Interagency Task 

Force—West, and Joint Task Force—North), may also provide 

these law enforcement agencies with support for their counterterrorism activities. 

This provision also includes an amendment which would require 

the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 

committees, no later than December 31st of each year, a report 

evaluating the effect on counterdrug and counterterrorism activities and objectives of using counterdrug funds of a joint task force 

to provide counterterrorism support, a description of the type of 

support and recipient(s) of support provided, and a list of current 

joint task forces conducting counterdrug operations. 

One-year extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 

1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

fiscal year the continuation of the authorities provided in section 

1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as amended by the John Warner NDAA for FY 2007 (Public Law 109–364), 

which allows the Department of Defense to support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and activities by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; the United Self-Defense Forces 

of Colombia; and the National Liberation Army. Each of these organizations is designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the 

U.S. Department of State under section 219 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act of 1965 (Public Law 89–236). 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
175 

This provision would also extend the limitation on the number of 

U.S. military and federally funded civilian contractor personnel in 

the Republic of Colombia through fiscal year 2010. Section 1021 of 

Public Law 108–375, as amended, limits the number of military 

personnel in Colombia to 800 people and the number of federally 

funded civilian contractors to 600 people. 

Given the success of Operation Willing Spirit, which successfully 

rescued three American hostages in July 2008, the ongoing negotiations with the Republic of Colombia regarding U.S. military access 

to Palanquero, Apiay, and Baranquilla air bases, and the scheduled 

loss of access to Manta Air Base in Ecuador, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to perform an assessment of the numerical limitations included in section 1021 of Public Law 108–375, as 

amended, and report to the congressional defense committees 180 

days after enactment of this Act on whether these numeric limitations should be changed, upward or downward, or repealed. 

Subtitle D—Military Commissions 

Military commissions (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that military 

commissions meet standards of fairness established by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). 

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the trial of detainees for 

violations of the law of war, unless the trial is conducted ‘‘by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which 

are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.’’ 

The Court concluded that ‘‘[t]he regular military courts in our 

system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes’’ and that ‘‘procedures governing trials by military commission 

historically have been the same as those governing courts-martial.’’ 

Consequently, a military commission ‘‘can be ‘regularly constituted’ 

by the standards of our military justice system only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice.’’ 

Similarly, the Court found that the Common Article 3 provision 

for ‘‘judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by 

civilized peoples’’ requires, at a minimum, that any deviation from 

the procedures governing courts-martial be justified by ‘‘evident 

practical need’’. According to the Court, ‘‘The uniformity principle 

is not an inflexible one; it does not preclude all departures from the 

procedures dictated for use by courts-martial. But any departure 

must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it.’’ 

The provision recommended by the committee is designed to 

meet this test by bringing procedures for military commissions in 

line with procedures governing trials by courts-martial, except in 

cases where deviations are justified by practical needs. 

The committee notes that the definition of the term ‘‘unprivileged 

enemy belligerent’’ in the provision makes no specific reference to 

al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. The committee acknowledges that the United States and its coalition partners are 

and have been engaged in hostilities pursuant to the Authorization 

for Use of Military Force, Public Law 107–40. The definition used 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
176 

by the committee encompasses these hostilities, as well as future 

hostilities, while providing for jurisdictional determinations to be 

made case-by-case, on the basis of the actions of each individual. 

The committee is aware of concerns that the defense teams in 

some military commission cases may have been under-resourced to 

conduct investigations, obtain expert witnesses, and perform other 

necessary tasks. Many of these concerns are set forth in a June 9, 

2009, memorandum from the Chief Defense Counsel for military 

commissions to the Attorney General of the United States and the 

General Counsel of the Department of Defense. The committee expects the Department of Defense to review and address these concerns, as appropriate. 

Subtitle E—Medical Facility Matters 

Medical Facility Matters (sec. 1041–1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the 

Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to execute an executive 

agreement for the joint use by the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs of a new Navy ambulatory care 

center, parking structure, and supporting structures and facilities 

in North Chicago, Illinois, and Great Lakes, Illinois, as well as 

medical personal property and equipment relating to the center, 

structures, and facilities. The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ jurisdiction over the center, structures, 

facilities, and property and equipment covered by the agreement 

not earlier than 5 years after execution of the agreement or upon 

completion of benchmarks established by the Secretary of Defense 

and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to the joint use of 

the facility. The provision would also authorize the transfer of functions, including civilian employee positions of the Department of 

Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The transfer of civilian employee positions would not result in a reduction in an employee’s pay, and would continue collective bargaining rights under 

title 5, United States Code, for a 2-year period. The transfer would 

not result in any non-bargaining unit employees becoming members of the bargaining unit. The center, structures, and facilities 

transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be designated as the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

The committee is aware that on April 22, 2009, testimony presented by the Veterans Administration (VA) to the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs was in opposition to proposed legislation 

that would make matters relating to direct patient care and the 

clinical competence of clinical health care providers subject to collective bargaining, the same matters proposed for 2 years under 

section 1604 of this bill. In that testimony, concern was expressed 

that such an expansion of collective bargaining rights would be an 

‘‘anathema to patient centered medicine’’ and would ‘‘adversely impact VA’s ability to deliver quality patient care.’’ The committee 

will observe with active interest the implementation of section 1604 

to see if, in fact, VA’s concerns were well founded. In any case, the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
177 

committee will not tolerate anything less than the highest quality 

of care for those treated at this federal health center. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the 

planning and implementation of the electronic medical record system or systems to be used at this federal health center as part of 

the assessment of the implementation of the joint Department of 

Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs fully interoperable 

electronic health records required by section 1635 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 109– 

364). 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Requirements, Authorities, and 

Limitations 

Congressional earmarks relating to the Department of Defense (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the procedures used to award funding for congressionally directed spending items that have been included in 

National Defense Authorization Acts for 3 or more consecutive 

years. The provision would also direct the Department of Defense 

Inspector General to conduct an audit to determine whether recipients of congressionally directed spending items are in compliance 

with laws pertaining to use of federal funds to influence congressional action. 

National strategic five-year plan for improving the nuclear 

forensic and attribution capabilities of the United States 

(sec. 1052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

President to develop a strategic plan for improving over a 5 year 

period the nuclear forensic and attribution capability of the United 

States and the methods, capabilities, and capacity for nuclear materials forensics and attribution. The Department of Homeland Security is the agency currently tasked with responsibility to coordinate the actions of the federal agencies. The plan would be conducted with the participation of the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, Energy and State, the Attorney General, the Director 

of National Intelligence, and other such officials as the President 

considers appropriate. 

The committee shares the larger congressional concern that the 

U.S. ability to attribute accurately the origins of the material and 

manufacturers of a nuclear or radiological device, including a dirty 

bomb, is adequate but is neither as robust as it should be nor sustainable over the long-term. While each of the named agencies has 

a role in the attribution chain, there is currently no fully coordinated and resourced forensics and attribution plan to guide government-wide strategy and investment. This is of particular concern to 

the committee as the research and development capabilities of the 

Department of Energy laboratories underpin all of the activities of 

each of the responsible agencies. 

The plan would be provided to Congress and would be due 180 

days after enactment of this Act. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
178 

One-year extension of authority to offer and make rewards 

for assistance in combating terrorism through government personnel of allied forces (sec. 1053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority provided in section 127b(c)(3)(C) of title 10, 

United States Code, to offer and make rewards through government personnel of allied forces to persons who provide information 

or nonlethal assistance that is beneficial to operations against 

international terrorism conducted by U.S. Armed Forces or allied 

forces operating in combination with U.S. Armed Forces, or is beneficial to force protection. 

Business process reengineering (sec. 1054) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, to require the appropriate 

chief management officer of the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

determine whether or not appropriate business process reengineering efforts have been undertaken before DOD approves a 

new business system modernization program. 

Responsibility for preparation of biennial Global Positioning System report (sec. 1055) 

The committee recommends a provision that would shift responsibility for preparing the biennial Global Positioning System (GPS) 

report from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Commerce. 

The Secretary of Defense would retain responsibility for certain aspects of the report, which at a minimum would include that portion 

of the report dealing with the current status of the GPS system. 

Additional subpoena authority for the Inspector General of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 1056) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to subpoena 

the attendance and testimony of witnesses necessary to carry out 

an audit or investigation. The DOD Inspector General would be required to notify the Attorney General in advance of the issuance 

of any subpoena, and would not be permitted to issue a subpoena 

if the Attorney General objects. 

The DOD Inspector General recently notified the committee that 

he was unable to complete an investigation requested by the committee because former senior DOD officials who engaged in the activities to be reviewed refused the Inspector General’s requests for 

an interview. The committee concludes that the DOD Inspector 

General needs the authority to compel testimony in appropriate 

cases. 

Reports on bandwidth requirements for major defense acquisition programs and major system acquisition programs (sec. 1057) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1047(d) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to require a report 

on the bandwidth determinations made each year by the Secretary 

of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence for each major 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
179 

defense acquisition program and each major systems acquisitions 

program respectively. 

Multiyear contracts under pilot program on commercial feefor-service air refueling support for the Air Force (sec. 

1058) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an 

exemption to the 5–year limitation on multiyear contracts and 

make other minor changes to enable the Air Force to implement a 

fee-for-service air refueling support pilot program. 

Section 1081 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) directed the Secretary of the Air 

Force to conduct a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of utilizing commercial fee-for-service air refueling tanker 

aircraft for Air Force operations. 

The Air Force has been working with the private sector to implement this pilot program. The Air Force has informed the committee 

that results from their formal request for information process indicate that a multiyear contract that exceeds the current 5-year limit 

would be necessary to promote adequate competition and reduce 

program costs. The Air Force needs to have authority to make commitments for the 8-year pilot program in order to issue a request 

for proposal. The Air Force also needs to be able to offer carriers 

insurance coverage similar to that provided to civil reserve air fleet 

(CRAF) program partners. This provision would provide the Air 

Force with those authorities. 

Subtitle G—Reports 

National intelligence estimate on nuclear aspirations of 

non-state entities and nuclear weapons and related programs in non-nuclear-weapons states and countries not 

parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (sec. 

1071) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to prepare a national intelligence estimate (NIE) on nuclear weapons and related programs of 

non-nuclear weapons state parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the weapons aspirations of such 

non-state actors as the DNI considers appropriate to include in the 

estimate. The NIE would be due on September 1, 2010. If the DNI 

determines that it is not possible to complete the NIE by such date 

then the DNI shall provided notification not later than August 1 

2010, that the NIE will be late and the date that the NIE will be 

submitted. The completed NIE would be submitted to the congressional defense committees and the Intelligence Committees of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. 

While the committee recognizes that the intelligence community 

prepares numerous reports that bear on certain aspects of the material that would be contained in the NIE, there is benefit to having a comprehensive report on this subject. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
180 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of 

military whistleblower protections (sec. 1072) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Government Accountability Office to review the implementation by 

the Department of Defense of military whistleblower protections afforded to members of the armed services. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Transfer of Navy aircraft N40VT (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Navy to transfer a Navy helicopter to a private corporation, the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation, at no cost to the Government. This provision would require that the transfer be: (1) at 

no cost to the Government; (2) subject to such terms and conditions 

as the Secretary may deem appropriate to protect the interests of 

the Government; and (3) conditioned upon receiving adequate consideration in the use of any technologies proven during testing of 

new technology on the aircraft. 

The Navy has been developing a concept to employ different propulsion approaches for helicopters. This program is known as the 

vectored thrust ducted propeller (VTDP) program. The testing on 

this concept has completed exploring the flight envelope for which 

the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) will certify the aircraft. The whole point of the development program, however, is to 

demonstrate whether the VTDP concept can expend the flying envelope for helicopters beyond their normal limits. 

The Navy has determined that: (1) the Navy has no further use 

for the aircraft to be transferred; (2) while the Navy owns the aircraft, they cannot permit the aircraft to fly outside the limits of the 

NAVAIR certification; (3) the Navy would incur substantial additional expense to expand the certification of this single aircraft; (4) 

the Navy and others within the Department of Defense would like 

to have the results of the testing; and (5) transferring ownership 

to the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation is the least expensive means 

of obtaining those results. 

Conveyance of Big Crow aircraft (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of the Air Force to transfer two Big Crow aircraft to an 

appropriate private entity, if it is determined to be in the best interests of the Air Force and the Department of Defense to do so. 

The committee notes that the Big Crow aircraft have been used for 

a number of test and evaluation and operational missions related 

to electronic warfare and other areas for a variety of joint customers. The committee understands that the Air Force must fund 

large sustainment and refurbishment costs for the aircraft, but believes that the capabilities provided by the systems are of high 

value to the Department of Defense. The committee believes that 

it may be possible to give the Department of Defense access to 

these critical test assets by transferring them to a private sector 

entity, who would then be responsible for their maintenance and 

operation in order to keep them in service to potential defense customers. The committee believes that this transfer should only occur 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
181 

if there is no liability and limited cost incurred by the Department 

of Defense in the transaction. 

Items of Special Interest 

National cyber security initiative 

The budget request included large but classified amounts for the 

national cyber security initiative, mostly in the national intelligence program budget, but also in the Department of Defense, the 

Department of Homeland Security, and elsewhere in the Federal 

Government. The new administration recently completed a significant policy review of the initiative, which began in the last years 

of the previous administration. 

The new review appears to have made considerable progress in 

at least framing many of the important issues that must be addressed. However, it is impossible for the public to come to this 

conclusion because all the fundamental aspects of the program, and 

the issues associated with it, remain classified. The administration 

realizes that it is imperative to engage in a public dialogue about 

the legal and policy issues affecting privacy and civil liberties, but 

has not indicated how or when it plans to achieve this objective. 

Likewise, the administration recognizes that it is essential to develop and publicly present a national strategy and doctrine for 

cyber security and operations for deterring aggression, establishing 

norms of behavior, and the like, that depends upon a level of public 

analysis and discourse about activities, vulnerabilities, and capabilities in cyberspace that is not possible today. 

There is another important problem with the cyber initiative, 

which the administration review did not address, that also cannot 

be rectified without substantial progress in declassifying basic information about the program. For a number of years, the government has invested large sums developing cyber security capabilities 

through the intelligence agencies. These capabilities are being developed inside the government on a classified basis, with very little 

commercial industry participation or even awareness. Some defense 

contractors are working on the technology, but under government 

engineering and technical direction. 

The committee is concerned that this government solution, even 

if it is superior technically now to what the private sector could 

provide, will before long be surpassed by commercial technology 

and systems and will become an expensive albatross. In addition, 

if the government believes what it says about the cyber threat, and 

believes that its technical solutions are substantially better than 

what is commercially available, it is incumbent on the government 

to make as much of that technology available to the private sector 

as possible, especially the owners and operators of critical infrastructure. Furthermore, privacy and civil liberties concerns will diminish the more the commercial information technology industry is 

involved in designing, engineering, and implementing cyber security solutions. 

The committee concludes, after extensive review, that commercial companies do have highly relevant technology for intrusion 

prevention at high speeds and volumes, and for recognizing anomalous activities and managing a rapid response across a large, comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
182 

plex network. Some of these industry sectors are not even aware 

that their capabilities are relevant to cyber security because the 

government has provided no insight into the capabilities it requires, or the architecture and concept of operations it has designed for the cyber security initiative. 

The committee urges the President to declassify the cyber security initiative to the level where industry can understand how it 

may contribute to solutions, and to invite U.S. industry to propose 

comprehensive solutions to the government’s cyber security needs. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to task the Defense Science Board 

(DSB) to assess the capability of U.S. industry to design and build 

capabilities to defend government networks and critical infrastructure consistent with the government’s classified architecture and 

concept of operations. The committee directs that the DSB report 

be forwarded to Congress by April 1, 2010. 

Ship decommissioning 

Section 231 of title 10, United Stets Code, requires the Secretary 

of Defense to submit an annual long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels, and to certify that the current budget and the 

future-years defense program (FYDP) funds that plan. 

The Senate report accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110–77) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 included 

direction that the Secretary include an addendum providing the 

hull numbers and planned disposition of ships that were to be dismantled, sunk, or decommissioned during the FYDP and the resultant gaps in capability upon the decommissioning of each ship. 

The committee finds these reports very helpful, but believes that 

they could be even more useful if there were better fidelity in projections of long-term force structure in this report. Specifically, one 

can infer from notional delivery schedules when a ship in the shipbuilding plan will deliver. What is much less clear for data beyond 

the FYDP is what assumptions are being made for 

decommissionings of ships. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include in each annual report submitted in accordance with section 

231 of title 10, United States Code, specific ship-by-ship 

decommissionings that are projected over the full-time period of the 

plan. That information shall be in addition to the more specific 

data on decommissionings within the period of the FYDP mentioned above. 

Strategic communications and public diplomacy 

The committee continues to monitor closely the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) funding for counter support for terrorism and 

counter-radicalization strategic communication programs and other 

public diplomacy programs. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks, the U.S. Government, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), has spent at least $10.0 billion on communication efforts designed to advance the strategic interests of 

the United States. DOD does not have a separate budget covering 

its strategic communication activities, but the GAO reports that 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
183 

DOD ‘‘spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year’’ to support 

its information operations outreach activities. 

The committee is aware of initiatives undertaken and funded by 

the joint improvised explosive device defeat organization and geographical combatant commands for strategic communications programs directed at counter-support for terrorism and counterradicalization. Many ongoing programs are in support of operations 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, but military information support teams 

(MISTs) from United States Special Operations Command are also 

deploying to United States embassies in countries of particular interest around the globe to bolster the efforts of the Department of 

State and the U.S. Agency for International Development. These efforts are in addition to many of other small public diplomacy programs. Strategic communications and public diplomacy programs 

are important activities and the committee supports them, but the 

committee is not able to determine whether these efforts are integrated within DOD or with the broader U.S. Government, nor is 

the committee able to oversee adequately the funding for the multitude of programs. 

While Congress awaits delivery of the report on strategic communication and public diplomacy activities of the Federal Government 

required under section 1055 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), 

the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense—Policy and 

Under Secretary of Defense—Comptroller to develop budget documentation materials for fiscal year 2011 that clearly articulate and 

document DOD’s objectives and funding levels for strategic communications and public diplomacy. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(185) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Repeal of National Security Personnel System; Department 

of Defense personnel authorities (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would freeze the expansion of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and terminate NSPS unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that termination would not be in the best interest of the Department of Defense and provides a specific schedule for making changes to improve the fairness, credibility, and transparency of the system. In 

the event that NSPS is terminated, the provision would provide a 

1–year period for the transition of NSPS employees back into the 

General Schedule system. In addition, the provision would authorize the Secretary to develop fair, credible, and transparent methods 

for hiring and assigning personnel, and for appraising employee 

performance. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

needs continuing flexibility to efficiently hire qualified new employees and to manage its workforce in a manner that promotes superior performance. However, the committee has received many complaints from DOD employees during the 5 years during which the 

Department has sought to implement NSPS, to the detriment of 

needed human capital planning and workforce management initiatives. The committee acknowledges the review of NSPS initiated by 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense under the auspices of the Defense 

Business Board and remains open to consideration of its forthcoming findings and recommendations. 

Extension and modification of experimental personnel management program for scientific and technical personnel 

(sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

experimental personnel management program at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the services, and a 

number of defense agencies for an additional 3 years. The provision 

would also equalize the compensation that employees under the 

program could receive above their base pay to the levels established for the Department’s Highly Qualified Experts program. The 

committee notes that DARPA has used this authority successfully 

to hire the specialized, world-class, technical talent they need to 

perform their unique defense mission. 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the aggregate 

of basic and premium pay payable during calendar years 2009 and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
186 

2010 to an employee who performs work in an overseas location 

that is in the area of responsibility of the Commander, United 

States Central Command, or an overseas location that was formerly in the area of responsibility of the Commander, United 

States Central Command but has been moved to the area of responsibility of the Commander, United States Africa Command, in 

support of a contingency operation or an operation in response to 

a declared emergency. 

The total amount payable may not exceed the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 

3, United States Code. 

Availability of funds for compensation of certain civilian 

employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to use funds available for the purchase of contract services to instead provide compensation for civilian employees to meet the same requirement. 

The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to hire up to 

30,000 new civil servants over the next 5 years, to replace contractor employees and restore needed expertise and authority to 

the DOD workforce. In the past, the Department has been impeded 

in efforts to achieve a rational balance between civilian employees 

and contractor employees by funding decisions that preclude tradeoffs between the two workforces. The committee believes that the 

Secretary should have the funding flexibility needed to make such 

trade-offs. 

Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (sec. 

1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a program of leadership recruitment and development for civilian employees of the Department of 

Defense, to be known as the Department of Defense Civilian Leadership Program (DCLP). 

The Secretary of Defense has announced plans to increase the 

size of the acquisition workforce by 20,000 government acquisition 

professionals by 2015 to address the Department’s long-standing 

problems in the acquisition of products and services. Acquisition 

experts have informed the committee that the Department’s needs 

extend beyond contracting officials to system engineers, development planners, software engineers, cost estimators, developmental 

testers, and other highly skilled professionals. They have emphasized that the quality of the new employees is at least as important 

as the quantity. The committee believes that the DCLP will provide 

the Department with an important new tool to recruit individuals 

with the academic merit, work experience, and demonstrated leadership skills necessary to build the most effective acquisition workforce possible. 

Review of defense laboratories for participation in defense 

laboratory personnel demonstration projects (sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to undertake a review of defense laboratories 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
187 

that are not currently operating under the successful laboratory 

personnel demonstration system, originally authorized by Congress 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 

(Public Law 103–337). The committee notes that the personnel system flexibilities within this program support laboratory directors’ 

efforts to hire and retain top quality in order to support the execution of their designated research and technology development missions. 

The committee notes that there are still a number of laboratories 

that have not been allowed to participate in the program and recommends that the Department quickly review the costs and benefits to allowing them to operate using the greater flexibilities inherent in the lab personnel demonstration program. The committee expects that in the interests of allowing the laboratories to optimally 

execute their designated missions, the laboratories will be delegated the maximum flexibility possible to shape their technical 

workforces. 

Item of Special Interest 

Utilization of hiring authorities for civilian health care professionals 

The committee notes that Congress provided enhanced and expedited personnel hiring authorities for civilian health care professionals to the Department of Defense in section 1636 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), as well as in section 1107 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417). These direct hire provisions authorized the Secretary of 

Defense to exercise any authority for the appointment and pay of 

health care personnel under chapter 74 of title 38, United States 

Code, for purposes of recruitment, employment, and retention of civilian health care professionals; and to recruit and appoint certain 

health care professionals directly to designated positions, respectively. 

The committee continues to hear complaints from the Department and from the services about the onerous nature of the civilian 

hiring process and that highly qualified professionals are lost to 

other agencies or to the private sector as a result. The hiring authorities provided to the Department by Congress were meant to 

alleviate those difficulties in order to enable the Department and 

the services to recruit and retain much needed health care support. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives not later than 30 days after enactment 

of this bill on the implementation and utilization of these hiring 

authorities to date, and whether the Department needs any additional legislative authorities in order to obtain necessary civilian 

health care professionals. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(189) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Increase in unit cost threshold for purchases using certain 

funds under the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund 

(sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would change the 

unit cost threshold for items whose purchase is subject to the limitation of subparagraph (e)(1)(A) of section 166a of title 10, United 

States Code, from $15,000 to the unit cost threshold in effect under 

section 2245a of this title, currently $250,000. 

Authority to provide administrative services and support to 

coalition liaison officers of certain foreign nations assigned to Joint Forces Command (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary 

of Defense to provide administrative services and support, and to 

pay travel and subsistence expenses, for certain coalition liaison officers assigned temporarily to U.S. Joint Forces Command, as is 

currently authorized for certain coalition liaison officers to the 

headquarters of a combatant command in connection with the planning for, or conduct of, a coalition operation. 

Modification of authorities relating to program to build the 

capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

no more than $75.0 million of the $350.0 million authorized annually for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for a program under section 

1206 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2418), as amended, may be used to build the capacity of foreign military forces to 

participate in or support military and stability operations in which 

the United States Armed Forces are a participant. 

The committee notes the request by the Department for new authorities to: (1) build the capacity of a foreign country’s national 

military forces preparing to support a coalition operation conducted 

as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, or by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International Security Assistance Force (ISAF); 

and (2) build the capacity of NATO and partner special operations 

forces to support NATO or coalition special operations conducted as 

part of OIF or OEF in Afghanistan, or by the NATO ISAF. The 

committee believes that both these activities can be conducted 

within the existing authority of section 1206 of Public Law 109– 

364, as amended. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
190 

The authority provided in section 1206 of Public Law 109–364, 

as amended, has been developed through a process of close consultation between the Department of Defense and Congress, resulting in both a number of legislative changes and informal policy 

guidance intended to ensure that the program is conducted consistent with the legislative intent. For example, the committee has 

made clear its desire that section 1206 funds not be used to build 

the capacity of foreign military forces of countries for which designated funds for training and equipping security forces have been 

established, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee would 

be open to considering proposals to use the authority under this 

section to help build the capacity of NATO and other coalition partners whose ability to contribute to ongoing military or stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would otherwise be limited. 

The committee has repeatedly stated that the authority of section 

1206 of Public Law 109–364, as amended, is intended to address 

emerging needs and should not duplicate or become a substitute for 

security assistance under Foreign Military Financing (FMF) authorities. To this end, the committee has emphasized the need for 

1206 programs to develop plans to transition to FMF funding if 

longer-term assistance is required. The Department’s stated desire 

to conduct sustained capacity building to prepare special operations 

to deploy for coalition operations suggests that it intends to establish multi-year programs with respect to certain recipient countries. To reduce the potential impact of such multi-year programs 

on the section 1206 program as a whole, the committee would establish the $75.0 million funding limit provided in this section. 

The committee reiterates its view that the authority of section 

1206 of Public Law 109–364, as amended, is temporary and encourages the Administration to review the existing security assistance 

authorities of the Department of Defense and Department of State 

to reconcile, de-conflict, and improve the effectiveness of these authorities. 

Modification of notification and reporting requirements for 

use of authority for support of special operations to 

combat terrorism (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish two 

distinct notification requirements under section 1208 of the Ronald 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as amended by the Duncan 

Hunter NDAA for FY 2009 (Public Law 110–417). In the event the 

Department is providing assistance under this authority to irregular forces, groups, or individuals supporting or facilitating military operations by U.S. special operations forces to combat terrorism, the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees at least 72 hours prior to the use of such authority, and in the event the Department is providing assistance under 

this authority to foreign forces supporting or facilitating military 

operations by U.S. special operations forces to combat terrorism, 

the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees no later than 48 hours following the use of such authority. 

This provision would also require the Department to notify the conVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
191 

gressional defense committees again should there be any change in 

the scope or funding level of the operation. 

The committee has reviewed the most recent notifications and 

the annual report submitted by the Department and believes the 

level of information provided by the Department is inadequate, particularly on issues of the type of support provided to U.S. special 

operations forces; type of support provided to the recipient; intended duration of the support (i.e. duration of the program); 

amount obligated under the authority to provide support; and an 

after-action assessment of the operational support. Therefore, this 

provision also amends the notification and reporting requirements 

established in section 1208 (c) and (f) respectively of the Ronald 

Reagan NDAA for FY 2005 (Public Law 108–375) to reflect these 

unaddressed matters. 

The committee is concerned that U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) may be leveraging this authority for long-term engagement with partner nations, rather than exclusively for support 

of or facilitating of military operations by U.S. special operations 

forces to combat terrorism, particularly in countries other than 

Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee recommends that SOCOM 

review the current programs to ensure that they are being executed 

in a manner consistent with the original intent. 

Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States 

military operations (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2010 the authority provided in section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181; 122 Stat. 393) for the Secretary of Defense to reimburse 

key cooperating nations for logistical and military support provided 

by that nation to, or in connection with, U.S. military operations 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF). This provision would also modify section 1233 of Public law 

110–181 to allow funds under section 1233 of Public Law 110–181 

for fiscal year 2010 to be used to assist key cooperating nations 

supporting U.S. military operations in OIF and OEF by providing 

specialized training and supplies, or loaning specialized equipment. 

The total amount of reimbursements and other support authorized 

for fiscal year 2010 would not exceed $1.6 billion. The provision 

would also extend until September 30, 2011, the requirements of 

section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 393) applicable to notifications of reimbursements of Pakistan for support it provided. 

The committee understands from the Department of Defense that 

the Pakistan Government has agreed to establish within the Pakistan Ministry of Finance an account, to be funded with $25.0 million from the next reimbursement to Pakistan under Coalition Support Funds, to cover the costs of helicopter spare parts. Under this 

arrangement, the United States would deposit this amount directly 

into Pakistan’s U.S.-administered Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 

trust fund, and the procurement of helicopter spare parts would be 

financed using those funds under the FMS program. The committee 

welcomes this arrangement as a positive step in improving transVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
192 

parency for how Pakistan uses reimbursements provided from Coalition Support Funds. 

One-year extension and expansion of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP), which enables commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan 

to fund humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects in their 

areas of responsibility that provide immediate benefit to the local 

people. The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 

use up to $1.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance funding in fiscal year 2010 for CERP. The provision would also provide that the 

Secretary may transfer up to $100.0 million of CERP funds to the 

Department of State to support the Afghanistan National Solidarity Program if the Secretary determines that doing so would enhance counterinsurgency or stability operations in Afghanistan. The committee notes that the budget request included $1.5 bil- lion for CERP for fiscal year 2010, consisting of $300.0 million for 

CERP in Iraq and $1.2 billion for CERP in Afghanistan. The committee welcomes the reduction in CERP expenditures for Iraq 

which is consistent with the drawdown of U.S. forces and the end 

of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq by no later than the end of August 2010. The committee has concerns related to the rapid growth 

of CERP funding in Afghanistan and would reduce CERP funding 

for Afghanistan by $100.0 million to $1.1 billion for fiscal year 

2010. This reduced funding level for CERP in Afghanistan would 

still exceed the level of CERP spending by U.S. forces in Iraq at 

the height of the surge in 2007–2008, when the U.S. troop level in 

Iraq exceeded 160,000 soldiers, more than twice the 68,000 U.S. 

soldiers expected to be deployed in Afghanistan by late summer 

2009. Also, concerns have been raised about the capacity of Afghanistan, with its lack of infrastructure and low literacy rates, to absorb such a large influx of CERP funds. In addition, the committee 

has concerns about the Department of Defense’s capacity to manage and oversee large amounts of CERP funds in Afghanistan. A 

report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) earlier this 

year found a lack of training for personnel responsible for executing 

CERP, and a shortage in the number of personnel needed to effectively execute CERP. As a result, oversight of CERP projects in Afghanistan has been conducted inconsistently or not at all. The committee strongly supports the GAO recommendations that the Secretary direct the Commander of U.S. Central Command to: 1) conduct an evaluation of workforce requirements for CERP in Afghanistan and ensure adequate staffing for its administration; and 2) establish training requirements for personnel executing CERP. 

The committee notes the valuable contribution that the National 

Solidarity Program (NSP) is making to reconstruction and local 

governance in Afghanistan. The NSP funds thousands of small development projects in nearly every corner of Afghanistan, providing 

modest grants of money directly to locally-elected community development councils which plan and oversee projects that meet local 

needs. As of the first quarter of 2009, the NSP has established over 

21,500 development councils in villages and localities in every provVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
193 

ince. The program provides grants averaging $27,000 with a cap of 

$60,000 per community, and has disbursed approximately $600.0 

million in international contributions, primarily from World Bank 

grants and the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. In addition, communities must take ownership of the projects by contributing at least 10 percent of the total project costs in either labor, 

materials, or funds. The Afghan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation 

and Development, which manages the program, has plans to expand the NSP to all districts in the country, including less secure 

areas in Regional Command South where the U.S. troop presence 

is increasing. The committee believes that increased funding for 

the NSP would support key counterinsurgency objectives of in 

areas at risk of insurgent influence and strengthening ties between 

local political entities and the Afghan Government. 

One-year extension of authority for security and stabilization assistance (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to 

$100.0 million in services or funds to the Department of State to 

support Department of State programs of security and stabilization 

assistance under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), as amended by 

section 1210 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

The committee believes that one valuable aspect of the section 

1207 authority is the increased coordination between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State (DOS) in the 

formulation and implementation of reconstruction, security, and 

stabilization assistance projects under this authority. At the same 

time, the committee reaffirms its view that section 1207 is a temporary authority. Should a section 1207–type authority be established within the DOS, the committee would urge that it be adequately resourced within the DOS budget and that authority be designed to institutionalize the expanded coordination between the 

DOD and DOS achieved under section 1207. 

Authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense personnel 

between the United States and foreign countries (sec. 

1208) 

The committee recommends a provision which would permit the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to accept, on a non-reciprocal basis, 

defense personnel of the defense ministry of an ally or friendly foreign government. This provision would not permit the DOD to pay 

the salary, per diem, cost of living, travel costs, cost of language 

or other training, and other costs for the personnel of such government. This authority will expire at the end of 2011. 

The committee understands that the Department has been approached by allies and friendly foreign nations that would like to 

assign defense personnel, civilian and military, to counterpart organizations in the Department, but has only had a limited capability 

to do so when the United States cannot provide reciprocal personnel. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
194 

The Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the congressional defense committees annually, not later than March 1, the 

costs of this program to the United States; the agencies and positions that are involved in the program; and an assessment of the 

benefits to the Department. 

Defense cooperation between the United States and Iraq 

(sec. 1209) 

The committee recommends a provision that would encourage the 

Secretary of Defense to increase the number of positions in professional military education courses at command and general staff colleges, war colleges, and the service academies available annually to 

personnel of the security forces of the Government of Iraq. The 

committee notes that the long-term security of Iraq is in the interest of the United States and that military education can foster enduring relationships with the security forces of the Government of 

Iraq. 

Report on alternatives to use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1210) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to assess and report on alternatives to the 

temporary authority provided under section 1202 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2412), as amended, which allows for the 

use of acquisition and cross-servicing agreements for the purposes 

of lending or leasing certain military equipment to military forces 

participating in combined operations with the United States in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, or as part of peacekeeping operations under the 

United Nations Charter or another international agreement. 

The committee notes that the temporary authority provided by 

section 1202 of Public Law 109–364, as amended, expires September 30, 2011. The committee reiterates its concern that acquisition and cross-servicing agreements are not intended for the loan 

or lease of significant military equipment and emphasizes the need 

to find alternatives to this authority prior to its expiration. 

Subtitle B—Reports 

Report on United States engagement with Iran (sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President, no later than January 31, 2010, to deliver a report to 

Congress on U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

The report would describe the status of U.S. efforts to engage with 

the Government of Iran, including an assessment of the progress 

of negotiations; the seriousness with which the Government of Iran 

is engaging in negotiations; and an assessment of the extent to 

which the Government of Iran has complied with United Nations 

Security Council Resolutions, and cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report would also include an 

assessment of the extent to which Iran continues past practices or 

has expressed a willingness to change its behavior, with regard to 

the following areas: diplomatic engagement; support for terrorism 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
195 

and extremism; nuclear weapons-related and other nuclear activities; and missile development activities. The report would also require an assessment of the Government of Iran’s involvement in 

the illegal narcotics networks in Afghanistan. And, finally, the report would also require the President to identify all sanctions 

against the Islamic Republic of Iran and provide an assessment of 

the effectiveness of these sanctions. 

The committee hopes the Government of Iran will seize the opportunity offered by President Barack Obama to engage in direct 

diplomacy with the United States to discuss areas of mutual interest and to engage in a good faith effort to resolve all outstanding 

issues related to its support for terrorism and extremism, and illicit 

nuclear and missile development activities. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Sense of Congress on establishment of measures of progress 

to evaluate United States strategic objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

Sense of the Congress that the Administration should review any 

previously established measures of progress for Afghanistan as required by section 1230(d) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and modify, add, or 

further establish applicable measures of progress for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as part of the report on Afghanistan required 

by section 1230 of Public Law 110–181 and the report on Pakistan 

required by section 1232 of Public Law 110–181, consistent with 

the Administration’s new strategy for the region as announced on 

March 27, 2009, and thereafter. 

Items of Special Interest 

China’s use of nonmilitary warfare concepts 

The Department of Defense’s Annual Report to Congress on the 

Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has included a brief description of the PRC concept of the ‘‘three warfares’’, generally identified as psychological warfare, media warfare, 

and legal warfare. These concepts, also referred to as ‘‘nonmilitary 

warfare concepts’’, have also been the subject of hearings before the 

United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission 

and were discussed in some detail in the Commission’s 2008 report 

to Congress. The March 2009 harassment of the USNS Impeccable 

by Chinese ships in the South China Sea stands as a recent example of how the PRC may be using the concept of ‘‘legal warfare’’, 

for instance, to influence regional events. The committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense to examine the implications of the ‘‘three warfares’’ on United States military affairs in the region and requests 

the Secretary to provide additional detail on each of them, including examples and trends, in the 2010 report to Congress. 

Recent surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia 

The committee is concerned about the recent surge in piracy off 

the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden and believes that piVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
196 

racy must be an urgent part of our national security dialogue. The 

April 2009 pirate attack on the U.S.-flag ship Maersk Alabama, 

and the ensuing rescue operation of Captain Richard Philips orchestrated by our Nation’s military, particularly the United States 

Navy and Navy SEALS, underscores the value of the armed forces 

in confronting piracy. While it is widely agreed that the naval 

forces of the world have a critical role to play in deterring and combating pirates, the problem is more complex and requires a holistic 

approach combining military efforts with industry efforts, diplomatic outreach, and robust prosecutions. 

Today, policymakers are searching for solutions to combat piracy 

and, more broadly, to address the situation in Somalia—a failed 

state that lacks a functioning government capable of enforcing its 

laws, or policing and securing its territory, including its territorial 

sea and exclusive economic zone. The committee believes that it is 

imperative that the international community come together to confront and solve this growing problem of piracy. Ultimately, the 

most durable, long-term solution will be achieved ashore, not on 

the high seas. While a more permanent solution involves engaging 

broadly on Somalia’s myriad issues ashore, near-term coordinated 

international action is necessary to protect ships, cargos, and, most 

importantly, seafarers from the proliferation of piracy in the region. 

Currently, the primary mechanism for U.S. military involvement 

is Combined Task Force–151, which consists of naval forces of the 

U.S. and several of our allies while cooperating and coordinating 

with the navies of a broad array of other nations, including Pakistan, Russia, India, and China. We cannot, however, expect the 

armed forces to secure completely a vast maritime expanse roughly 

equivalent to the distance of the U.S. coastline from Maine to Florida. The global commercial shipping industry, to include the shipping companies and their insurers, must also take necessary steps 

to protect their ships and crews. 

The committee believes that the U.S. military must remain 

proactively involved in the issue, but that the industry must develop effective piracy countermeasures, including the employment 

of private armed shipboard security teams capable of responding to 

and preventing pirate attacks. Although this alone will not lead to 

a permanent solution to the problem it is a necessary step that 

must be taken while we pursue such a solution. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(197) 

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 

$424.2 million, an increase of $20.0 million above 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 2010 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 2010 funds in excess of the 

specific amount authorized for each CTR program element. 

The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for new 

Cooperative Threat Reduction initiatives for states outside of the 

former Soviet Union, $7.0 million for strategic offensive arms elimination and $3.0 million for additional expenses associated with the 

Russian and other chemical weapons destruction activities. 

The committee continues to believe that one of the highest priorities of the CTR program is destroying Russian chemical weapons 

munitions at the destruction facility in Shchuch’ye, Russia. The 

CTR program has entered into an arrangement with the Russian 

Government that assigns responsibility to Russia to complete the 

U.S. funded destruction facility and begin operations. Timely startup and safe operation of the facility is essential and continues to 

be a matter of concern to the committee. As a result, the committee 

directs the Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees 

immediately if there is any delay or other problem in the startup 

of either the Russian funded destruction facility or the U.S. funded 

destruction facility. The committee notes that the formal dedication 

ceremony for the Shchuch’ye facility was conducted in May. 

The additional $3.0 million for chemical weapons destruction 

shall be available for sustainment of the community outreach efforts and to provide technical or other assistance to assist with the 

Shchuch’ye facility startup, or other chemical weapons destruction 

activity. 

The committee notes that there are other countries with stockpiles of bulk chemical agent and chemical munitions outside of the 

former Soviet Union for which the Department of Defense (DOD) 

could provide destruction assistance. The committee urges DOD to 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
198 

explore assisting other countries with chemical weapons destruction requirements. 

Authority to enter into agreements to receive contributions 

for Biological Threat Reduction program (sec. 1303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to receive contributions from any person the Secretary of Defense deems appropriate for purposes of the biological threat reduction program (BTRP) at the Department of Defense. The BTRP is 

a program carried out under the Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CTR) program. Any funds accepted would be retained by the Secretary of Defense in a separate account in the Treasury, but would 

be available for obligation and expenditure without further appropriation. If the funds contributed have not been obligated or expended within 3 years from the date received they shall be returned to the original donor. This authority would expire on December 31, 2015. 

The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to notify 

the congressional defense committees within 30 days after receiving any contributions. The notification shall include the person who 

made the contribution and the value and purpose of the contribution. The Secretary of Defense may not obligate the funds accepted 

until 15 days after the notice is submitted. In addition, the provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report for each fiscal year in 

which funds are accepted describing the contributions received in 

that fiscal year. This annual report would be due no later than October 31 of each year and would describe the contributions for the 

previous fiscal year. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy has successfully utilized similar authority for several of the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. The committee urges the Secretary 

of Defense to utilize this authority to the maximum extent practical 

to allow other countries, organizations, and individuals to contribute to the important BTRP programs. If the Secretary of Defense determines that the authority is useful, the committee would 

welcome suggestions for any additional CTR programs that could 

utilize this type of authority. 

Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds for bilateral and multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 1304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to obligate not more than 10 percent of the 

funds authorized to be appropriated for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program for any bilateral or multilateral activities 

relating to nonproliferation or disarmament, notwithstanding any 

other provision of law. The Secretary may exercise this authority 

after notifying the appropriate congressional committees 15 days in 

advance of the intent to exercise this authority and if the President 

certifies the action is necessary to support the national security objectives of the United States. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
199 

The committee believes that additional flexibility is needed to ensure there are adequate funds available to address urgent immediate requirements for which funds might not otherwise be available or are inadequate. Similar authority has been provided to the 

Secretary of Energy elsewhere in this bill. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(201) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile 

Extension of previously authorized disposal of cobalt from 

National Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411) 

The committee recognizes the volatility of the cobalt market and 

the current economic downturn, which has reduced demand for cobalt material. The committee authorizes that cobalt sales authority 

to be extended 2 years through fiscal year 2011. 

Authorization for actions to correct the industrial resource 

shortfall for high-purity beryllium metal in amounts not 

in excess of $80,000,000 (sec. 1412) 

Subsection 303(a)(6)(c) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 

(Public Law 81–774) requires a specific authorization from Congress for any action or actions taken to correct an industrial resources shortfall, that would cause the aggregate outstanding 

amount of all such actions to exceed $50.0 million. The budget request has $19.5 million which the Department estimates will complete the project; however, this amount of funding will place them 

over the current $50.0 million limit by statute. 

The committee is aware of the Department’s concern that unanticipated cost growth may occur. Accordingly, the committee authorizes an increase not in excess of $80.0 million. 

Subtitle C—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces 

Retirement Home (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$134.0 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2010 from the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund. Of the amount requested, $62.0 million would be used for the operation and maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and $72.0 million 

would remain available for construction and renovation of physical 

plants. 

The committee notes that in accordance with section 418 of title 

24, United States Code, the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense will inspect the Retirement Home’s Washington D.C. location this year. Because committee staff continues to hear concerns expressed about issues with staffing and health care services 

at the Retirement Home, the committee looks forward to the Inspector General’s report and its continued oversight of the operations of the Retirement Home. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
202 

Budget Items 

T–AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship 

The fiscal year 2010 budget request included $940.1 million within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for building two T– 

AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships. 

These next two vessels are intended to support the Maritime 

Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F), concept. At this time last 

year, the future-years defense program (FYDP) included several 

ships in the plan to support the MPF(F) concept. However, the 

FYDP did not include any T–AKE vessels after 2009. 

The other MPF(F) vessels that were in that FYDP last year have 

been delayed in this budget, on the basis that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) needs to review this concept before implementing it. 

The committee notes that the Navy’s acquisition strategy for 

these two T–AKE vessels includes exercising options on existing 

contracts that would remain in force until after fiscal year 2010. In 

other words, the contract options would be available to exercise, at 

the Navy’s discretion, until fiscal year 2011 for one ship and fiscal 

year 2012 for the other ship. 

In the face of the pending QDR review, it would make sense to 

hedge our bets on moving forward as rapidly as this on one part 

of the program, when the Department has delayed other parts of 

the program pending that review. 

The committee believes that continued production of only one of 

these vessels is sufficient to hedge against a positive outcome for 

the MPF(F) concept in the QDR, while avoiding a production break 

in the shipyard. The Navy could use available funds to contract for 

some advanced procurement to protect shipbuilding schedules, but 

need not award the full contract for the second ship to do that. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $400.0 million to reflect delaying exercising the option for the second of the 

two ships at least until fiscal year 2011, after the Department completes the QDR reviews of the MPF(F) concept. 

Defense Coalition Support Fund 

The budget request included $22.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Defense Coalition 

Support Fund. The legislative authority for this fund, which would 

require an amendment to title 22, United States Code, does not 

currently exist. The committee recommends a decrease of $22.0 

million in OMDW for the Defense Coalition Support Fund. 

Defense Health Program Operation & Maintenance funding 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for the Defense 

Health Program Operation and Maintenance account includes the 

following changes from the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels are discussed in greater detail 

in title VII of this committee report. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
203 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

TRICARE continuation pending MEDICARE eligibility ................. 4.0 

Reimbursement for exceptional travel .............................................. 10.0 

TRICARE eligibility for Retired Reservists under the age of 60 .... 10.0 

Expansion of survivor eligibility for the TRICARE dental program ................................................................................................. 2.0 

Total ............................................................................................. 26.0 

Medical products sustainment 

The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 67100HP for 

medical products and capabilities enhancement activities. The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for this account. 

The committee believes that this activity needs to be better justified, with specific sustainment activities related to specific medical 

products or technologies identified to justify requested funds. 

Breast Cancer Center of Excellence 

The budget request included $113.3 million in PE 63115HP for 

medical technology development. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.3 million for the Breast Cancer Center of Excellence. 

The committee believes there are higher medical research priorities 

for the Department of Defense, including addressing critical infectious disease, combat casualty care, and warfighter psychological 

health issues. The committee further notes that the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute has requested a fiscal 

year 2010 budget of over $5.0 billion. The committee believes that 

the Department of Defense should leverage those funds to address 

any identified military cancer research priorities. 

Department of Defense Inspector General 

The budget request included $272.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG). The committee is concerned that funding levels for 

independent audit and investigative functions should keep pace 

with the demand for these services. Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of $16.0 million in OMDW for the OIG, 

of which $15.0 million is for operation and maintenance and $1.0 

million is for procurement. 

The OIG audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the programs and operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), and 

recommends policies and process improvements that promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD programs and 

operations. The committee notes the dramatic growth in the number and cost of Department contracts for operations, procurement, 

research, and construction within the United States and around 

the world. The increase recommended by the committee should enable the OIG to conduct oversight related military operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, contract management and acquisitions, and 

support audits to identify potential waste, fraud, and abuse. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(205) 

TITLE XV—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

This section states the purpose of this title which is to authorize 

additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations. 

Army procurement (sec. 1502) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Army procurement. 

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Navy and Marine Corps procurement. 

Air Force procurement (sec. 1504) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Air Force procurement. 

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1505) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for Defense-wide activities procurement. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1506) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for research, development, test, and evaluation expenses. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1507) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for operation and 

maintenance expenses. 

Military personnel (sec. 1508) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for military personnel expenses. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1509) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for defense working 

capital funds. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
206 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for the Defense 

Health Program. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1511) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for drug interdiction 

and counterdrug activities, defense-wide. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1512) 

This section would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 for the Office of the 

Inspector General of the Department of Defense. 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513) 

This section would provide that the amounts authorized for overseas contingency operations in this title are in addition to the 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act. 

Funding tables (sec. 1514) 

This section would provide that the amounts authorized for overseas contingency operations in this title are to be available for the 

projects, programs, or activities in the dollar amounts indicated by 

funding tables in Division D of this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1515) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of overseas contingency operations 

funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. 

The committee also recommends a provision that would authorize 

the transfer of up to $1.5 billion of overseas contingency operations 

funding authorizations in this title to the Mine Resistant Ambush 

Protected Vehicle Fund. These special transfer authorities are in 

addition to the general transfer authority contained in section 1001 

of this Act, but the same reprogramming procedures applicable to 

transfers under section 1001 would also apply to transfers under 

this section. 

Limitations on availability of funds in Afghanistan Security 

Forces Fund (sec. 1516) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the Afghanistan 

Security Forces Fund in fiscal year 2010 will comply with the conditions in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181; 122 Stat. 428). 

Availability of funds in Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund 

(sec. 1517) 

The committee recommends a provision that would specify the 

uses of funds transferred by the Secretary of State to the Secretary 

of Defense during fiscal year 2010 for the Pakistan CounterinsurVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
207 

gency Fund (PCF) to provide assistance to the security forces of 

Pakistan to build the counterinsurgency capability of the Pakistan 

military forces and the Pakistan Frontier Corps. The provision 

would require prior to the expenditure of PCF funds that the Secretary of Defense provide an assessment as to whether the Government of Pakistan is committed to confronting the threat posed by 

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremists based on a 

determination by the Government of Pakistan that these extremist 

groups pose a threat to Pakistan’s national interest and confronting 

this threat is critical to Pakistan’s own national interest. The provision would also authorize the transfer of funds from the PCF account to other accounts of the Department of Defense, provide for 

prior notice to Congress before the transfer of these funds, and require quarterly reports on the specific uses of these funds. 

Budget Items 

Single channel ground to air radio systems family 

The budget request for overseas contingency operations includes 

$128.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the procurement of single channel ground to air radio systems (SINCGARS). 

The committee understands that the Army bases this request on 

anticipated battle losses for which there appears to be no record or 

documentation of actual loss over time upon which to base a projection. Further, if funded fully, the budget request would procure radios at a level beyond the Army’s validated acquisition objective. It 

also remains unclear to the committee how the Army is accounting 

for the more than 64,000 SINCGARS-like radios the Army procured in fiscal year 2005 against its acquisition objective. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million 

in OPA for SINCGARS radios due to unjustified program growth. 

The funding that remains in the budget request should be used to 

cover the installation cost of systems already procured and 

sustainment of existing systems. The committee also directs the 

Army to request funds for SINCGARS sustainment transitions in 

the appropriate Operation and Maintenance, Army budget activity 

in fiscal year 2012 and beyond. 

Force XXI battle command brigade and below 

The budget request for overseas contingency operations includes 

$242.9 million in other procurement, Army (OPA), for Force XXI 

Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The Army’s Chief of 

Staff’s unfunded priorities list included a request for an additional 

$179.0 million in FBCB2 funding. FBCB2, used in conjunction with 

the Blue Force Tracking System, has proven its value in combat 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by increasing the ability of 

commanders to control the conduct of small unit operations while 

at the same time reducing the risk of fratricide. The committee recommends an increase of $179.0 million in OPA for FBCB2. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request for overseas contingency operations (OCO) includes $1,535.0 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Fund. In title I of this act, the committee recommended a 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
208 

transfer of $564.9 million to title XV of this Act, including $203.1 

million for the joint improvised explosive device defeat organization’s (JIEDDO) attack the network line of operation; $199.1 million for JIEDDO’s defeat the device operation; $41.1 million for 

JIEDDO’s train the force operation; and $121.6 million for 

JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure line of operation. These adjustments are reflected in the appropriate tables. 

Despite the Department’s decision to institutionalize JIEDDO, 

the committee believes that JIEDDO’s funding should remain in 

the OCO portion of the budget request because JIEDDO was organized in response to threats confronted by U.S. forces in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The committee continues to be concerned that the Department cannot adequately oversee JIEDDO’s budget, manpower, 

and activities in a manner that ensures the most efficient and effective delivery of equipment and capabilities to U.S. forces. The 

committee urges that the Department consider reexamining 

JIEDDO’s oversight structure to determine whether a principal 

staff assistant could devote time and attention to JIEDDO’s activities commensurate with the size of its activities. 

The committee recognizes that improvised explosive devices 

(IED) will likely remain the weapon of choice for extremists operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee commends JIEDDO 

for its ongoing efforts to counter the threat posed by IEDs to U.S. 

forces, and supports the Department’s request to maintain 

JIEDDO’s robust funding levels. 

JIEDDO has executed over $300.0 million for the construction of 

training lanes and other IED-specific training devices over the past 

few fiscal years. While the committee believes JIEDDO has an important role to play in coordinating the dissemination of information about tactics, techniques, and procedures being used by extremists and developing recommendations on how to counter IED 

threats and train U.S. forces, the committee believes the military 

departments have primary responsibility for training of their respective forces. Therefore, the committee directs JIEDDO to fund 

neither additional training lanes nor support and sustainment 

thereof after fiscal year 2010. The committee feels strongly that 

funding the sustainment and upgrade of training lanes is the sole 

responsibility of the appropriate military department, defense 

agency, or combatant command. 

The committee supports the direction provided to JIEDDO by the 

appropriations committees relating to the future of the counter-improvised explosive device operations integration center (COIC). The 

committee believes COIC contributes to the Department provision 

of reach-back capabilities for conventional forces, and the committee commends JIEDDO’s focus on these efforts. The committee 

is, however, concerned that the COIC may be duplicative and/or insufficiently coordinated with other similar organizations within the 

military departments, defense agencies, and intelligence community. The committee understands that the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, in coordination with United States Central Command, 

and the Joint Staff, is undertaking an assessment of the relative 

contributions of various entities that provide reach-back support, 

and looks forward to the results of this analysis. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
209 

The committee notes that the Department has taken inconsistent 

positions on the disposition of ad hoc, but critical, entities created 

to respond to the urgent needs of combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. As noted elsewhere in this report, the Secretary of Defense has stated in testimony before the Senate Appropriations 

Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, that the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) task force should be phased 

out, while at the same time, the Department has decided to institutionalize JIEDDO. Just as the committee is concerned about the 

possible hasty demise of the ISR task force, so too the committee 

is concerned about the premature decision to make JIEDDO permanent. The committee urges the Department to clarify the criteria it is using to determine which institutions should become permanent and which should not, and to demonstrate how these criteria are being consistently applied across organizations. 

MQ–9 Reaper modifications 

The committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in line 

66, Air Force Aircraft Procurement, for MQ–9 modifications. The 

budget request included funds for procurement and integration of 

a long-range camera that the Air Force has decided not to buy. 

Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), 

for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, consisting of $300.0 million for CERP in Iraq and 

$1.2 billion for CERP in Afghanistan. The committee’s concerns regarding the level of CERP funding for Afghanistan, which has 

grown rapidly in recent years, are discussed in title XII. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in 

OMA, OCO, for CERP. 

Human terrain teams 

The budget request included $1.4 billion for security programs in 

Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency 

Operations (OCO), including funds for Human Terrain Teams 

(HTT). The committee supports the HTT program but expects that 

the reduction in troop levels in Iraq will result in a reduction in 

the requirement for additional HTTs. The committee recommends 

a reduction of $20.0 million in OMA OCO from the request. 

Information Dominance Center 

The budget request included $1.4 billion for security programs in 

Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency 

Operations (OCO), including funds for the Information Dominance 

Center (IDC) within the Intelligence and Security Command. The 

IDC has performed pioneering work in data mining, analytic collaboration, information sharing technology, and concepts of operation before and after the events of September 11, 2001, including 

direct support for deployed forces. The committee believes, however, that the IDC activities can be pared back as other organizations and activities now provide similar support and capabilities. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
210 

The committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million in OMA 

OCO to the request. 

Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund 

The budget request included $700.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO), for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF). Following 

the submission of the budget request, the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of State reached an agreement that for fiscal year 

2010 funds for the PCF would be transferred from funds appropriated to the Department of State. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $700.0 million in OMA, OCO, for the PCF. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(211) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, environmental cleanup, and other activities required to 

implement the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The tables in Division B of the bill provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this Act, other than the overseas contingency operations 

projects authorized in title XXIX, and summarize that funding by 

account. Funding for base closure projects is summarized in the 

table that follows, and is explained in additional detail in the table 

included in title XXVII of this report. The fiscal year 2010 budget requested $22.95 billion for military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $13.1 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.96 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $7.9 billion for base 

closure activities, including $7.5 billion to implement the results of 

the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. 

Excluding the overseas contingency operations projects in title 

XXIX, the committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

for military construction and housing programs totaling $22.92 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 an increase of $1.08 billion for additional construction 

projects, and a reduction of $1.06 billion in unjustified or lower priority projects, for a net increase of $22.0 million to the amount requested for military construction and family housing. Additionally, 

the committee recommends the rescission of $112.5 million in prior 

year funding no longer required. 

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 2010. 

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 construcVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
212 

tion projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure 

program as October 1, 2012, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2013, 

whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX of this 

Act take effect on October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of this 

Act, whichever is later. 

Funding tables (sec. 2004) 

The committee recommends a provision that directs that the 

funding authorized for appropriations in sections 2104, 2204, 2304, 

2404, 2411, 2502, and 2606 shall be available, in accordance with 

requirements of sections 4001 for projects, programs, and activities, 

and in the amounts, specified in the funding table in sections 4501, 

4502, 4503, and 4504. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(213) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $3.66 billion for military construction and $796.65 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $3.47 billion for military construction and $796.65 million for family housing for fiscal year 2010. 

In December 2007, the Army announced its specific force structure and stationing strategy to accommodate active end strength 

growth of 65,000 personnel. As part of that strategy the Army indicated that it would increase its number of brigade combat teams 

(BCTs) by six, from 42 to 48. In fiscal year 2009 the Army was authorized and had appropriated more than $1.1 billion in military 

construction funding and $333.0 million in Army Family Housing 

for BCTs 46, 47, and 48 at Forts Stewart, Carson, and Bliss. In the 

fiscal year 2010 budget request, the Army has decided to limit future growth to 45 BCTs. The committee, rather than rescind the 

fiscal year 2009 funding for the three BCTs which will not be activated, expects that the Army will come forth expeditiously with alternative plans and project reprogramming requests where necessary to meet its other long standing barracks, vehicle maintenance, troop dining facility, and company operations facility shortfalls. However, the committee also notes that the fiscal year 2010 

request included funding for other BCT construction and range facilities which are in excess of the new requirements. Funding for 

those projects have been reduced or eliminated. Additionally, $53.0 

million in fiscal year 2009 funding for Army Family Housing at 

Fort Carson, Colorado is rescinded. The Army has indicated to the 

committee that because of the elimination of one BCT, Fort Carson 

has adequate housing for the number of soldiers and their families 

assigned. At Fort Bliss, Texas the committee notes that the Army 

proposes to continue construction of facilities for an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) which will not now be activated. The 

Committee is also aware that the Army awarded contracts at Fort 

Stewart, Georgia and Fort Carson, Colorado even after the Secretary of Defense announced plans to reduce the number of Army 

BCTs. The continued construction of those facilities, along with the 

marginal justification for occupancy by existing units for the project 

at Fort Bliss, would appear to be presumptuous given that some of 

these decisions are well in advance of Quadrennial Defense Review 

(QDR) decisions. 

The committee also eliminated without prejudice $20.0 million 

funding requested for site preparation for the National Museum of 

the U.S. Army at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The status of fundraising 

for the museum will not permit construction to begin immediately 

after the site preparation is completed. Each military construction 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
214 

project must result in a complete and usable facility and the current construction plan and timeline will build segments of the museum, but not a complete facility. 

In fiscal year 2009 the committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded a Command and Battle Facility at Wiesbaden, Germany intended for the 7th Army Headquarters. The Army did not 

fund the second increment in its fiscal year 2010 request. It also 

did not fund a number of other companion facilities which had been 

planned. This puts into question the entire Wiesbaden relocation 

plan. The committee understands the decision on relocation has 

been deferred pending the QDR. While the full authorization remains, the committee rescinds the fiscal year 2009 authorization 

for appropriations of $59.5 million. 

Finally, the committee eliminated funding for the Warrior Transition Complex at Landstuhl, Germany pending a decision on the 

final location of a hospital replacement facility for the Landstuhl 

Regional Medical Center. 

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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the 

specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 

projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for two Army fiscal year 2006 military construction 

projects at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, until October 1, 

2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for miliVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
215 

tary construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Item of Special Interest 

Cooperative security location in Manta, Ecuador 

The committee continues to monitor closely the Ecuadorian Government’s decision not to renew the lease of the United States Government at Manta Air Base, which is used by the United States 

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) for intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance operations against illegal narcotics trafficking 

in the Eastern Pacific. In 1999, the United States signed a 10-year 

agreement with then Ecuadorean President Jamil Mahuad. The 

Government of Ecuador fulfilled its agreement allowing the United 

States to conduct counter-narcotics operations out of Manta 

through 2009. 

The committee notes that the Manta Air Base provided a unique 

set of capabilities that are difficult to replace in a single location 

and that SOUTHCOM is looking at several options to mitigate the 

loss of Manta. However, the loss of Manta will impact the operational reach of detection and monitoring missions in the Eastern 

Pacific region, and while some operations can be conducted from 

other locations in the region to mitigate some of the loss of Manta, 

operating from different locations increases transit times and operational costs. 

The committee understands that SOUTHCOM is currently preparing a mitigation plan for the loss of Manta Air Base. With this 

in mind, the committee directs the Commander of SOUTHCOM to 

provide a report to the committee 60-days after enactment of this 

Act which would include SOUTHCOM’s mitigation plan, as well as 

explain how the Command specifically intends to mitigate this loss 

to its detecting and monitoring operations in the Eastern Pacific; 

what, if any, replacement options within the region are being explored; and the potential for future negotiations with the Government in Ecuador. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(217) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$3.76 billion for military construction and $515.11 million for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$3.53 billion for military construction and $515.11 million for family housing for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee notes with particular interest that the fiscal year 

2010 budget request contains the first increment of funding for the 

relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. An item of special 

interest later in this title reflects the committee’s view on this critical program. 

The committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded the 

Ship Repair Pier Replacement Facility at Norfolk, Virginia as well 

as the Apra Harbor Wharves Improvement project on Guam. These 

are large projects, projected for late fiscal year 2010 award, and 

will take several years to complete construction. 

The committee reduced funding for the Military Working Dog facility on Guam, which appears to be overstated. It should be noted 

that United States Special Operations Command is building a 

number of similar sized facilities in this budget request at an average cost of slightly more than $3.0 million each. Finally, the committee eliminated funding for the Andersen Air Force Base North 

Ramp Utilities for the reasons cited in the items of special interest 

on Guam. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction and planning and design of family housing units 

for the Navy for fiscal year 2010. 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 2010 to improve existing Navy family housing units. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
218 

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 2010 in this Act. This provision 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for 

military construction and family housing projects for the activeduty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The State list 

contained in this bill is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain 

fiscal year 2006 project (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Division B of Public Law 109–163) to increase the 

project authorization for a waterfront security enclave at Bangor, 

Washington, by $67.0 million, as well as extend the authorization 

until October 1, 2012. This increase and extension were requested 

by the Department of Defense. 

Budget Item 

Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa 

The budget request includes $41.6 million in military construction funds for four separate projects at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. 

The projects include $21.7 million for an ammunition supply point, 

$8.1 million for security fencing around the perimeter of the base, 

$7.2 million to pave several internal base roads, and $4.8 million 

to construct a fire station. The committee recommends funding all 

four of these military construction projects. 

The committee notes that the facilities of the Combined Joint 

Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF–HOA) at Camp Lemonier, 

Djibouti, have been largely funded to date by supplemental appropriations for expeditionary infrastructure. CJTF–HOA staffing has 

likewise been expeditionary in nature, with personnel and officers 

serving rotations of 1 year or less. Prior to United States Africa 

Command’s (AFRICOM) status as a fully operational combatant 

command, the committee expressed concern over the lack of guidance on the future presence of U.S. military forces on the African 

continent. Since that time, however, AFRICOM officials have referred to CJTF–HOA as an enduring forward operating site providing a persistent, rather than an episodic, presence for building 

regional security capacity. The committee recognizes the importance of CJTF–HOA, particularly given the continuing counter-piracy mission off the coast of Somalia, and the importance of regional persistent engagement opportunities, but the committee requires further clarification on the future of CJTF–HOA on the continent. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

report to the congressional defense committees, 180 days after enactment of this Act on specific responsibilities of CJTF–HOA within 

AFRICOM and the relationship between AFRICOM, CJTF–HOA, 

the Offices of Security Cooperation (OSC) in the Task Force’s area 

of operations, and OSCs on the continent but outside the CJTF– 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
219 

HOA’s Operations Area. The committee further expresses concern 

as to whether AFRICOM resources will be able to sustain the current level of operations in future years. 

Items of Special Interest 

Military realignments in Japan and on the Island of Guam 

The committee notes that on February 17, 2009, The United 

States Government reaffirmed its support of an agreement with the 

Government of Japan concerning the implementation of the relocation of 8,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam by 

2014 in a manner that maintains unit integrity. This realignment 

is a key element of the transformation of the alliance with Japan 

and secures the enduring presence of remaining U.S. forces in 

Japan. The committee is aware that the success of this agreement 

depends on many factors including tangible progress towards completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility, successful completion 

of the environmental impact statement for Guam, and the coordinated funding of over $10.0 billion by both countries to complete 

construction of all operational requirements, housing, as well as 

the upgrade to infrastructure and utilities on Guam. 

Regarding the Futenma Replacement Facility, the committee 

notes that ‘‘tangible progress’’ is currently considered by the Department of Defense (DOD) to be a signature by the Governor of 

Okinawa on a landfill permit required to commence construction. 

This action is currently planned to take place in mid to late 2010 

and would allow the U.S. Government to gain flexibility to make 

adjustments in the timeline and determination of units to be moved 

to Camp Schwabb, Okinawa. 

The environmental impact statement (EIS) currently underway 

is a statutory requirement that must be completed prior to commencement of construction in order to allow military planners to 

mitigate any significant negative impact to the environment on the 

Island. The Record of Decision for the EIS is scheduled to be completed in 2010. The EIS will also serve as the opportunity to develop firm requirements to ensure adequate individual training of 

Marines on Guam and collective training in the region. Several 

concerns were brought to the attention of this committee during 

testimony in recent months. To date, projects to support these 

training requirements have not been identified or planned. 

Investments in Guam’s infrastructure for port upgrades, roads, 

and utilities are the essential first steps to ensure that significant 

construction efforts can be supported without detrimental impact to 

the local community. The committee notes that no funding is included in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2010 to address 

Guam’s port and utility infrastructure requirements, despite the 

fact that $378.0 million has been requested to start construction of 

a new ramp at Anderson Air Base, to upgrade military piers at 

Apra Harbor, and to relocate a military working dog facility. 

In addition, Congress has repeatedly requested from the DOD a 

master plan that details the facilities to be constructed and validates the estimates of funding required to complete the move to 

Guam. To date, the Department has not provided any details of a 

masterplan or an investment strategy. This omission is of critical 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
220 

concern to the committee absent the submission of a future-years 

defense plan (FYDP) to accompany the budget request for fiscal 

year 2010. An FYDP would go a long way toward illustrating to the 

committee that the total U.S. investment required for the initiative 

can be supported in future budget requests. The FYDP is currently 

being assessed as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and is 

likely to be affected by major program changes in a potentially constrained fiscal environment. 

The committee also notes that the authorization of the construction requested for the ramp and utilities at Anderson Air Force 

Base will not result in a complete and useable facility as required 

by section 2801 of title 10, United States Code. This could preclude 

its use for the requirement identified in the justification data that 

accompanies the budget unless further construction is also authorized and appropriated in future years. This partial construction has 

the risk of becoming a ‘‘bridge to nowhere’’ without a firm indication of future funding to complete the requirement. 

In consideration of these facts, the committee recommends that 

authorizations for the partial construction of certain projects 

unique to the movement of Marines to Guam be deferred until the 

DOD provides Congress with: (1) a master plan detailing construction efforts and the total costs; (2) a FYDP that provides Congress 

with an understanding of the impact of this initiative on future defense budgets; 3) a final environmental impact statement with a 

firm mitigation plan to minimize the negative impact to the local 

community; 4) a firm plan to address Marine training requirements; and 5) confirmation of tangible progress towards completion 

of the Futenma Relocation Facility. 

Secretary of the Navy report on an outlying landing field 

The committee notes the requirement for the Department of the 

Navy to establish an outlying landing field (OLF) to support the 

stationing and operation of carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft on the 

east coast of the United States within a suitable range of both 

Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia, and Naval Station Norfolk/ 

Chambers Field, Virginia. The OLF will also support training requirements of transient carrier-based aircraft to be stationed at 

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. The OLF 

serves as a critical training facility for pilots to practice aircraft 

carrier landings with lower risk and under more controlled conditions before conducting highly demanding day and night carrier 

landings at sea. A new OLF will afford the Department increased 

scheduling capacity to mitigate current capacity shortfalls, greater 

operational flexibility, improved safety, and higher training fidelity 

in operational flight training on the east coast. The committee is 

aware that public opposition has been expressed to the Department 

of the Navy during the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement evaluating sites for a future OLF in North Carolina and 

Virginia. The committee expects the Secretary of the Navy to take 

into consideration the impact on local communities of the placement and operation of an OLF and to examine means to mitigate 

the impact on those communities. As part of that consideration, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to engage and consult 

with the State of North Carolina and the Commonwealth of VirVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
221 

ginia, as well as local governments and other public stakeholders, 

prior to the issuance of a final environmental impact statement 

and record of decision, to identify ways to mitigate impacts, to 

evaluate opportunities for economic assistance, and to minimize the 

land removed from the state tax base. The committee further directs the Secretary of the Navy, prior to the issuance of a final environmental impact statement and record of decision, to provide to 

the congressional defense committees a report containing a review 

of the aforementioned engagement and consultations, as well as the 

results of those engagements. The report shall include a description 

of the measures taken by the Department of the Navy to identify 

all suitable options for the location of an outlying landing field. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(223) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.15 billion for military construction and $569.04 million for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2010. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1.18 billion for military construction and $569.04 million for family housing for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee does not recommend authorization of appropriations at this time for the War Reserve Material Compound and the 

Airlift Ramp and Fuel Facilities at Al Musannah Air Base in 

Oman. The projects were proposed as a result of a Government of 

Oman request to U.S. Central Command to relocate existing U.S. 

military facilities from Seeb International Airport, Oman, in order 

to facilitate commercial development. The committee is concerned 

that projects have been requested for Al Musannah Air Base, without a base master plan, without the appropriate long-term agreements in place with the Omani Government, and without consideration of contributions from the host nation. Furthermore, the committee notes that an additional $350 million would need to be included in U.S. defense future budgets in order to ensure these 

projects could be used for their intended purpose. Absent a futureyears defense plan to accompany the budget request for fiscal year 

2010, the committee is unable to confirm the commitment of funds 

in future budgets to complete this requirement. 

The committee does not recommend authorization of appropriations at this time for a new hangar facility at Naval Air Station 

(NAS) Sigonella, Italy, to support the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle. The committee notes that Navy flight-line facilities at 

Sigonella are currently underutilized and can accommodate this requirement in the near-term, starting with the arrival of the first 

Global Hawk system in October, 2009. The committee recommends 

deferring the investment in additional flightline facilities at NAS 

Sigonella until the Quadrennial Defense Review results inform future Navy P–8 and unmanned systems programs, as well as subsequent basing decisions for these programs at NAS Sigonella. 

The budget request included an authorization of appropriation of $33.75 million to upgrade electrical infrastructure at Anderson Air 

Force Base, Guam, intended to support the establishment of power 

hub for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, strike, and aerial 

refueling assets. The committee notes that an additional $500.0 

million would need to be included in U.S. defense future budgets 

in order to ensure this project can be used for its intended purpose. 

Absent a future-years defense plan to accompany the budget request for fiscal year 2010, the committee is unable to confirm the 

commitment of funds in future budgets to complete this requirement. The committee has been briefed that the project will also corVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
224 

rect power distribution deficiencies for current mission operations 

at Anderson Air Force Base. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that the authorization of appropriations for this project are expended to only carry out the 

scope of work in the construction data provided with the budget request that addresses current requirements regarding power distribution on the south side of Anderson Air Force Base. 

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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list 

of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 

projects (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2007 military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2011, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the 

Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 

projects (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2006 military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2011, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the 

Department of Defense. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
225 

Temporary prohibition on use of funds for military construction improvements, Palanquero Air Base, Colombia 

(sec. 2307) 

The committee recommends a provision which would fence the 

funding for military construction improvements at Palanquero Air 

Base, Colombia until the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State, certifies to the congressional defense committees and the military construction appropriations committees 

that the negotiations with the Republic of Colombia have resulted 

in long-term access rights that will permit United States Southern 

Command (SOUTHCOM) to adequately perform its mission. 

The Air Force budget request includes $46.0 million for military 

construction improvements at Palanquero Air Base, Colombia, including funding for runway, apron expansion, and various other facilities improvements. The committee is aware of the not yet completed negotiations between the United States Government and the 

Republic of Colombia regarding access rights for American equipment and personnel. As a result, the committee believes these 

funds should not be expended until the Commander of 

SOUTHCOM has secured terms that will permit the Command to 

perform its mission over a period of time that justifies the investment in military construction. 

Further, the committee is aware of the Department’s expected 

loss of Cooperative Security Location Manta, Ecuador later this calendar year, and the Department’s ongoing requirement for air base 

facilities from which to operate counter-narcotics aerial detection 

and reconnaissance operations. As such, the committee has approved the Air Force request for $46.0 million in funding for military construction projects at Palanquero Air Case, Colombia. 

Finally, the committee is aware of concerns raised and the perception that this expanded U.S. military presence in the region, 

particularly for Colombia’s neighbors (e.g., Venezuela, Ecuador, and 

Bolivia) will give rise to increased skepticism about American military intentions in the region. Given these concerns, the committee 

directs the Commander of SOUTHCOM to consult partner nations 

in the region to ensure they are aware of ongoing U.S. requirements for robust counter-narcotics aerial detection and reconnaissance operations. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(227) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$3.1 billion for military construction for the defense agencies, 

$146.54 million for chemical demilitarization construction, and 

$75.04 million for family housing for the defense agencies, the 

Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2010. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.86 billion for military construction, $151.54 million for chemical 

demilitarization construction, and $425.04 million for family housing programs for fiscal year 2010 including a significant increase 

to the Homeowners Assistance Program. 

The committee reduced funding for the fiscal year 2010 increment of the National Security Agency’s Utah Data Center. This 

$1.59 billion facility was recently fully authorized as a military construction project, but the level of funding requested cannot be reasonably executed in this fiscal year. 

The committee fully authorized, but incrementally funded the 

hospital replacement projects in Guam and at Lackland Air Force 

Base, Texas. 

The committee made small reductions in funding for Health and 

Dental Clinics at Forts Carson, Stewart, and Bliss in order to right 

size to account for the elimination of three brigade combat teams 

from the Army at those installations. In addition, the Hospital Replacement Facility at Fort Bliss, Texas is a conjunctively funded 

project which is split between the military construction account 

and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account. The committee reduced the military construction portion of the funding for 

this project by $27.6 million and expects the Department to use 

$24.0 million of BRAC funding, no longer required for the Hospital 

Alteration Project PN 72865, to fund the project at a slightly reduced scope. The committee also eliminated funding for one of two 

elementary schools requested for Fort Stewart, Georgia which the 

Department of Defense Educational Activity has indicated is now 

in excess of requirements given the projected reduction in soldiers 

and dependents to be assigned. Although a brigade will no longer 

be activated there is enough other growth at Fort Stewart to warrant another elementary school. The committee added $50.0 million 

for construction of an elementary school at Boeblingen, Germany. 

The current facility is located in a converted troop barracks and 

has significant life, health, and safety concerns.The committee fully 

authorized the Hospital Replacement project on Guam for $446.45 

million, but incrementally funded the authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 2010 at $200.0 million. Similarly, the committee fully authorized the Ambulatory Care Center at Lackland 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
228 

Air Force Base for $441.0 million but authorized for appropriation 

the first increment of $70.0 million. 

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 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funding for fiscal year 2010 for architectural and engineering services and construction design activities for construction or improvement of existing family housing units. 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. 

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 

2404) 

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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2008 project (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

table relating to the Defense Logistics Agency section 2401 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Division B of Public Law 110–181) in the item related to Point Loma 

Annex, California. This increase was requested by the Department 

of Defense. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2009 project (sec. 2406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

table relating to the Defense Logistics Agency section 2401 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Division B of Public Law 110–417) in the item related to Souda Bay 

Greece. This increase was requested by the Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 

project (sec. 2407) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for one Defense Logistics Agency fiscal year 2007 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
229 

military construction project at Richmond, Virginia until October 1, 

2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the Department of Defense. 

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 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(231) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriation of $276.3 million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2010. The committee 

recommends an authorization of appropriation of $276.3 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 $276.3 million for the United States’ contribution to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(233) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $1.02 billion for military construction in fiscal year 2010 

for National Guard and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends a total of $1.27 billion for military construction for the 

reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are 

contained in the State list table included in this report. 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-bylocation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2010. 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 2010. 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 2010. 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 2010. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-location basis. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
234 

Authorization of appropriations, 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 2010 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 bill is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2007 

projects (sec. 2607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for certain Guard and Reserve fiscal year 2007 military construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for 

fiscal year 2011, whichever is later. These extensions were requested by the Department of Defense. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 

project (sec. 2608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorizations for Army National Guard fiscal year 2006 military 

construction projects until October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2011, whichever is later. This extension was requested by the 

Department of Defense. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(235) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT 

ACTIVITIES 

Summary 

The budget request included $396.8 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The committee has authorized the amount requested for these activities in section 2701 of 

this Act. 

In addition, the budget requested an authorization of appropria- tions of $7.5 billion for implementation of the 2005 BRAC round. 

Section 2702 of this Act would authorize the full $7.5 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2010. Included in the 

$7.5 billion requested for BRAC is an authorization for appropriations for $5.9 billion in military construction projects that would be 

initiated in fiscal year 2010. Section 2702 of this Act provides authorization for these projects. 

The table in Title XXVII of Division B of the bill provides the 

specific amount authorized for each BRAC military construction 

project as well as the amount authorized for appropriations for all 

BRAC activities, including military construction, environmental 

costs, relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent change of station costs for military personnel, and other 

BRAC costs. 

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment activities funded through Department of Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 

1995 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded 

through Department of Defense base closure account 

2005 (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for fiscal year 2010 that are required 

to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. The table included in this title of the bill lists the specific amounts authorized at each location. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal year 2010 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
236 

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 bill is 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Report on global defense posture realignment and interagency review (sec. 2704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report on the status of overseas base closure and 

realignment actions undertaken as part of a global defense posture 

realignment strategy and the status of development and execution 

of comprehensive master plans for overseas military main operating bases, forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations. In addition, the report would require the Secretary of Defense to include in the report a review by the Department of State 

and other federal departments and agencies deemed necessary to 

national security. The provision would also amend section 118 of 

title 10, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees 90 days 

after completing a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) on the impact of that review on the global posture of United States military 

forces. 

The committee notes that in 2004, the President released an Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy which subsequently 

was known as the Global Defense Posture Realignment Strategy. 

This strategy, planned for implementation over 8 to 10 years, calls 

for roughly 70,000 military personnel and 100,000 dependents to 

return from overseas locations from Europe and Asia to bases in 

the continental United States. Other overseas forces were to be redistributed within current host nations such as Germany and 

South Korea, while new sites would be established in the nations 

of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Africa. The committee is 

aware that these realignment plans may have a major impact 

across many aspects of U.S. foreign and security policy. As such the 

committee has an ongoing interest in ensuring that the Global Defense Posture Realignment is closely aligned with an overarching 

strategic framework agreed upon by key government agencies in 

the national security strategy formulation process. 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense’s 2010 

QDR will provide an important opportunity to formulate a strategic 

framework that may affect the U.S. global defense posture. Therefore, the committee expects that a report assessing the impact of 

the QDR on global basing plans should also be shared with other 

federal agencies responsible for national security. 

Sense of the Senate on need for community assistance related to base closures and realignments and force repositioning (sec. 2705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that, as the Federal Government implements 

base closures and realignments, global repositioning, and initiatives to increase the end strength of the Army and the Marine 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
237 

Corps, it is necessary to assist local communities coping with these 

programs and to comprehensively assess the needs and degree of 

assistance to communities to effectively implement the various initiatives of the Department of Defense while aiding communities to 

either recover quickly from closures or to accommodate growth associated with troop influxes. 

The committee notes that Subsection (b)(4) of section 2905 of the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 

XXIX of Public Law 101–510; section 2687 of title 10, United States 

Code note) states ‘‘that Secretary shall seek to obtain consideration 

in connection with any transfer under this paragraph of property 

located at the installation in an amount equal to the fair market 

value of the property, as determined by the Secretary.’’ The same 

section also authorizes the Secretary to convey property at no cost 

if the redevelopment authority with respect to the installation 

agrees that the proceeds from any sale or lease of the property received by the redevelopment authority during at least the first 

seven years after the date of the initial transfer of property shall 

be used to support the economic redevelopment of the installation. 

The committee encourages the Department’s use of a full range 

of opportunities to assist local communities, including the use of 

no-cost economic development conveyances (EDCs) to facilitate economic development during tough economic time. In testimony on 

June 17, 2009 before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee by Department of Defense representatives, the committee recognizes that ‘‘since 2002 the Army has granted 68 Cost 

and No-Cost EDCs for 32,000 acres (23 No-Cost EDC parcels covering 31,000 acres and 45 ‘‘Cost’’ EDC parcels covering 1,000 

acres), the Navy eight (8) for 4,000 acres with zero ‘‘Cost’’ EDCs, 

and the Air Force 19 No-Cost EDCs covering just under 24,000 

acres.’’ 

The committee is also aware that the proceeds gained from consideration received as a result of a property disposed under BRAC 

authorities are used to supplement appropriated funds to accelerate environmental clean-up, remediation, and compliance actions 

for other BRAC property. Therefore, funds received for properties 

have a direct impact on the Department’s ability to address other 

military requirements. 

Relocation of certain Army Reserve units in Connecticut 

(sec. 2706) 

The committee recommends a provision that authorizes the Secretary of the Army to locate an Army Reserve Center and Maintenance Facility in the vicinity of Newtown, Connecticut, at a location to be determined by the Secretary. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(239) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL 

PROVISIONS 

Military construction and land acquisition projects authorized by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction and land acquisition projects for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The authorized 

amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Extension of authority to use operation and maintenance 

funds for construction projects inside the United States 

Central Command and United States Africa Command 

areas of responsibility (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further 

amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), as amended, to extend for 

1 additional year, through the end of fiscal year 2010, the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of Defense to use funds 

appropriated for operation and maintenance to carry out construction projects intended to satisfy certain operational requirements in 

support of a declaration of war, national emergency, or other contingency. 

Modification of authority for scope of work variations (sec. 

2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the Department of Defense from carrying out military construction projects or 

the construction, improvement, or acquisition of a military family 

housing project in which the scope of work exceeds the amount specifically authorized by Congress. 

Modification of conveyance authority at military installations (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2869 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the secretary 

concerned to enter into an agreement to convey real property, including any improvements thereon, to any person who agrees, in 

exchange for the real property, to carry out a land acquisition to 

limit encroachment around Department of Defense installations 

and ranges. This provision would also require the authority to sunset on September 20, 2013. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
240 

Two-year extension of authority for pilot projects for acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied housing (sec. 2814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

Navy’s authority for unaccompanied housing for 2 years. 

Subtitle B—Energy Security 

Report on Department of Defense efforts toward installation 

of solar panels and other renewable energy projects on 

military installations (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act on the Department’s efforts to place solar panels and other renewable energy 

projects on military installations. The committee is aware of the efforts of individual services to place renewable energy projects on 

military installations as part of an overall effort to achieve partial 

independence from the commercial electrical grid during periods of 

emergency and natural disaster. The committee is also aware that 

the services are adapting existing statues, particularly section 2667 

of title 10, United States Code, in order to have commercial entities 

construct and operate these projects. The report directed by this 

statute should describe all ongoing efforts, legislative and regulatory obstacles, recommended changes to current statute which 

will enhance this effort, and the Department’s renewable energy 

goals by 2025. 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance, Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia (sec. 

2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to transfer 2.4 acres at Naval Air Station, 

Oceana, Virginia to the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia. This would 

be for the purpose of permitting the City to expand services to support the Marine Animal Care Center. 

Items of Special Interest 

Incrementally funded programs 

The Department has consistently resisted the funding of large 

complex multiyear construction projects incrementally, i.e. seeking 

full authority for the project in the annual budget request, and 

then an authorization for appropriation on a yearly basis until completion. The Department has instead chosen to fund these projects 

by using a phasing strategy. Since section 2801(b) of title 10, 

United States Code 2801(b), requires that each phase result in a 

complete and useable facility, this strategy can lead to inefficient 

designs, complex construction difficulties brought on by multiple 

contractors on a single site, repeated contractor mobilizations, and 

inefficient ordering of construction materials. This phasing strategy 

often leads to higher overall costs to the government and longer 

construction times from start to finish. The committee has authorized incremental funding for several large complex military conVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
241 

struction (MILCON) projects in fiscal year 2010. These projects include two hospitals, a ship repair pier, and a Wharf Improvement 

Project. For the two hospitals alone it is estimated that the government will save over $165.0 million using this method as opposed 

to a phased strategy. While the vast majority of MILCON projects 

should adhere to the principal of yearly full funding, there are a 

few large and complex projects that warrant incremental funding. 

This strategy has been used to great efficiency in the BRAC account. The Department is strongly encouraged to consider incremental funding for those few and finite projects where the government is able to achieve substantial savings and efficiencies. 

Report on long-term strategy to accommodate force structure initiative implementation at military installations 

The committee finds that the simultaneous implementation of 

force structure initiatives in the United States has exceeded capacity of existing infrastructure at military installations. In order to 

provide enough living and working space for service members, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) has acquired relocatable facilities 

that are used as barracks, administrative offices, dining halls, and 

equipment maintenance facilities. In addition, existing barracks at 

military installations are in deteriorating conditions, due to lack of 

facilities sustainment, restoration, modernization (SRM), and necessary military construction investments by the Department. 

To date, DOD has not provided the committee a comprehensive 

and detailed plan for replacing relocatable facilities with permanent facilities, or a long-term strategy to invest in or replace existing deteriorating infrastructure. Additionally, DOD continues to 

delay funding of anticipated permanent facilities, SRM and necessary military construction required to accommodate force structure initiatives already being implemented. The committee believes 

that providing permanent adequate facilities for our service members, especially housing, is essential to the health of the force. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 

January 30, 2010, outlining a strategy to replace relocatable housing with permanent facilities, and investments or replacement military construction required to provide adequate housing for service 

members at installations affected by force structure initiatives. The 

report shall include: (1) how many relocatable facilities are currently being used, (2) what installations have relocatable facilities, 

(3) an installation-by-installation plan to replace relocatable facilities with permanent facilities, (4) a plan to replace, sustain, restore 

or modernize deteriorating and outdated barracks, and (5) investment details associated with the plan. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(243) 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary 

The President’s Overseas Contingency Operations budget request 

for fiscal year 2010 included $1.4 billion for military construction 

projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. The table in section 4504 describes the specific projects and recommended adjustments for fiscal year 2010. The committee removed from those fiscal year 2010 

Overseas Contingency Operations military construction tables’ 

projects for which funds have already been appropriated. The committee then substituted similar projects for Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan from the regular fiscal year 2010 military construction 

authorization request. The committee added $20 million for a facility in Mons Belgium for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

Special Operations Coordination Center. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$930.49 million in overseas contingency military construction 

projects for the Army for fiscal year 2010. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$474.8 million in Overseas Contingency Operations military construction projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2010. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(245) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2010, 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 four categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); (2) 

defense environmental cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) 

defense nuclear waste disposal. 

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities at the 

Department totaled $16.4 billion, a 1 percent increase above the 

fiscal year 2009 regular appropriated level. Of the total amount 

suggested: 

(1) $9.9 billion is for NNSA, of which: 

(a) $6.4 billion is for weapons activities; 

(b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities; 

(c) $1.0 billion is for naval reactors; and 

(d) $420.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator; 

(2) $5.5 billion is for defense environmental cleanup; 

(3) $852.5 million is for other defense activities; and 

(4) $98.4 million is for defense nuclear waste disposal. The budget request also included $6.2 million within energy supply. The committee recommends $16.4 billion for atomic energy defense activities, the amount of the budget request. 

Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends: 

(1) $10.2 billion for NNSA, of which; 

(a) $6.5 billion is for weapons activities, an increase of $106.2 million above the budget request; (b) $2.1 billion is for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, the amount of the amount of the budget request; (c) $1.0 billion is for naval reactors, the amount of the 

budget request; and 

(d) $420.8 million is for the Office of the Administrator, 

the amount of the budget request; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
246 

(2) $5.4 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities, a decrease of $100.0 million below the amount of the budget 

request; (3) $852.5 million for other defense activities, the amount of 

the budget request; and (4) $98.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, the 

amount of the budget request. 

The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a reduc- tion of $6.2 million. 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $10.0 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2010 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to carry out 

programs necessary to national security, an increase of $106.2 million above the budget request. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons activities, an increase of $106.2 million above the budget request. The committee authorizes the following activities: $1.6 billion for directed 

stockpile work; $1.6 billion for campaigns; $1.7 billion for readiness 

in the technical base and facilities; $234.9 million for the secure 

transportation asset; $227.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism 

incident response; $90.4 million for site stewardship; $871.6 million 

for safeguards and security; $154.9 million for facilities and infrastructure recapitalization; and $30.0 million for support to intelligence. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $1.6 billion for directed stockpile work, an increase of $45.0 million above 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 an increase of $15.0 million in weapons dismantlement and disposition to position Pantex to support 

additional dismantlements and to explore potential dismantlement 

scenarios for the Device Assembly Facility to augment or support 

Pantex. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for 

research and development for certification and safety. The committee is concerned that sufficient attention be paid to more collaborative certification activities and that there is a need to ensure 

that methods to improve surety and safety in nuclear weapons are 

further explored. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $1.6 billion for campaigns, an increase of $15.5 million above the amount of the budget request. 

The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts involving 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
247 

the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test 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 for advanced certification to further support the committee’s concern that 

increased attention be paid to surveillance activities. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for enhanced surety 

and $10.0 million for enhanced surveillance in engineering campaigns to continue to support efforts to further enhance the knowledge of the health of the stockpile and addressed surety concerns. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in the inertial confinement fusion campaign for Omega operations to ensure 

that the Omega facility can fully support work at the National Ignition Facility to achieve ignition in 2010. To support the increase 

in certification and surveillance activities the committee recommends an increase in the advanced simulation and computing 

campaign of $9.0 million. The committee recommends a reduction 

of $20.0 million in the readiness campaign for tritium readiness. 

The reduction for tritium readiness takes into account a large carryover balance resulting from contracting delays and problems with 

the tritium producing bars. 

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $1.7 billion for readiness in the technical base, an increase of $10.0 million above the budget request. 

This account funds facilities and infrastructure in the nuclear 

weapons complex and includes construction funding for new facilities. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement project (CMRR), 

Project 04–D–125, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a result of uncertainty in the design of the CMRR. The committee 

notes that the certification required to be made by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) and the National Nuclear Security Administration has not been made. The committee continues 

to believe that replacing the existing facility is essential but the 

CMRR has significant unresolved issues including the appropriate 

size of the facility. Some of these decisions will not be made until 

the Nuclear Posture Review is completed at the end of the year. 

The CMRR is one of two projects that the DNFSB has identified 

as having significant unresolved safety issues. These issues are associated with the project’s safety-related systems. Until such time 

as the safety basis documents are completed, the outstanding 

issues cannot be resolved. CMRR will be a category I facility supporting pit operations in building PF–4 and has a preliminary cost 

estimate of $2.6 billion. As stated last year the committee continues to support reconstitution of the pit manufacturing capability 

in PF–4 but urges that all safety issues with CMRR be resolved as 

soon as possible. If there is any change in the planned mission at 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
248 

CMRR, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to notify the 

congressional defense committees. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for the 

Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) refurbishment, 

Project 09–D–007. The LANSCE is the only machine capable of 

performing nuclear cross section measurements of weapons materials to support the resolution of significant findings investigations. 

LANSE refurbishment would also further enhance the ability of the 

NNSA to perform surveillance on the stockpile. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $234.9 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. Last year 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 committee has been notified that this third-party financing option is no 

longer being pursued. If the STA resumes consideration of any 

third-party option, the committee expects STA to fully notify Congress of any third-party financing arrangements in advance of executing any leases. 

Nuclear counterterrorism incident response 

The committee recommends $227.6 million for nuclear counterterrorism incident response, an increase of $5.7 million above the 

amount of the budget request. This increase supports the committee’s efforts to improve U.S. capability for nuclear forensics and attribution. Additional funds are also provided in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $871.6 million for safeguards and security, the amount of the budget request. 

Facilities and infrastructure 

The committee recommends $154.9 million for the facilities and 

infrastructure program (FIRP), the amount of the budget request. 

FIRP was established to address the backlog of deferred maintenance at NNSA facilities. While the FIRP has been successful, the 

committee continues to be concerned that as the FIRP comes to a 

close, routine maintenance of facilities, utilities and infrastructure 

upgrades, such as electrical system and road improvement, will 

once again be deferred to address programmatic demands. 

Site stewardship 

The committee recommends $90.4 million for site stewardship, 

the amount of the budget request. 

Support to intelligence 

The committee recommends an increase to weapons activities 

generally of $30.0 million to ensure that the National Nuclear SeVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
249 

curity Administration Laboratories can continue to support the intelligence community with specialized analysis particularly in the 

areas of nuclear weapons issues and nuclear weapons related proliferation activities as well support for biological and chemical 

weapons proliferation issues. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs 

The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program, the same as the budget request. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has management 

and oversight responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The committee recommends funding for these programs as fol- lows: $347.3 million for nonproliferation and verification research 

and development, an increase of $50.0 million; $193.2 million for 

nonproliferation and international security, a decrease of $14.0 million; $552.3 million for international nuclear materials protection 

and cooperation, the amount of the budget request; $24.5 million 

for elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production, the amount 

of the budget request; $705.9 million for fissile materials disposition, an increase of $4.0 million; and $313.5 million for the global 

threat reduction initiative, a decrease of $40.0 million. 

Nonproliferation and verification research and development 

The committee recommends $347.3 million for nonproliferation and verification research and development, an increase of $50.0 

million for increased forensics capabilities, international safeguards 

technologies, nuclear detonation systems, seismic monitoring, proliferation detection technologies, and support to joint DOE Air 

Force space situational awareness activities. 

The committee is particularly concerned about the long-term 

ability of the United States to monitor and detect clandestine nuclear weapons development activity, and to attribute nuclear weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal devices. 

Currently, the fragile U.S. forensic research and development capabilities of DOE and its laboratories underpin the capabilities of all 

the federal agencies dealing with nuclear forensics and attribution. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been assigned 

responsibility to work with the various Executive Branch agencies 

to coordinate technical nuclear forensics and attribution responsibilities. As part of that responsibility DHS, working with the 

other agencies, must develop requirements and identify the capabilities needed to detect, locate, render safe, and attribute any nuclear event, and to identify gaps in the necessary capabilities. 

While some work has started, much remains to be done. In order 

to more fully integrate and coordinate these actions, the committee 

recommends a provision elsewhere in this Act to develop a nuclear 

forensics and attribution plan. 

Nonproliferation and international security 

The committee recommends $193.2 million for nonproliferation 

and international security, a decrease of $14.0 million, including a 

reduction of $2.0 million for Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP), and a reduction of $12.0 million for nuclear nonVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
250 

compliance verification, as a result of the failure of the North Koreans to support the Six-Party Talks. 

Last year, when the committee was working on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), 

there was great hope that the Six-Party Talks, which were making 

progress at the time, would result in the permanent dismantlement 

and disablement of the North Korean nuclear weapons program. 

Unfortunately the talks have come to a complete stop since the 

North Koreans conducted another nuclear test, ejected the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, reversed most of 

the initial disablement work, started to reprocess the irradiated 

fuel previously under the IAEA seal, and have repeatedly tested 

cruise and ballistic missiles. Other provocative actions, such as the 

detention of the U.S. journalists, have further aggravated an already tense situation. As a result the committee, reluctantly, has 

not authorized any of the funds requested to support future disablement and disarmament actions. In the event that there is any 

change in the current situation and the North Koreans return to 

the negotiating table, sign a binding verifiable agreement to disclose fully and to dismantle permanently their nuclear weapons 

program, the committee would welcome an amended or supplemental budget request, or reprogramming action, to implement 

such an agreement. 

Fissile materials disposition 

The committee recommends $705.9 million for fissile materials, 

an increase of $4.0 million. The committee notes that the United 

States and Russia have made considerable progress in formulating 

a new plan for each country to disposition 34 metric tons of excess 

weapons grade plutonium and that the protocol to the Plutonium 

Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) could be signed 

in the near future. The committee continues to support the fissile 

disposition program as an important part of the overall nuclear 

nonproliferation program. The committee recommends a $2.0 million reduction in the U.S. uranium disposition program. The committee notes that the program office intends to buy depleted uranium to blend-down U.S. highly enriched uranium. The committee 

believes that other programs in DOE, notably the Environmental 

Management (EM) program, has material that could be used as 

blend-down stock and that this material should be transferred to 

the uranium blend-down program at no charge. 

The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million for the 

Russian fissile materials disposition program to continue the joint 

gas reactor technology demonstration program. 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 Russian fissile material program has supported the gas reactor design and technology risk reduction program for many years 

and the committee believes that the time has come for a decision 

to be made with respect to the future of the gas reactor. As a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
251 

sult, the committee directs DOE to enter into discussions with Russia and establish a plan, no later than December 1, 2011, to either 

build a gas reactor or close the U.S. portion of the gas reactor technology program. 

Global threat reduction initiative 

The committee recommends $313.5 million for the global threat 

reduction initiative, a decrease of $40.0 million. These funds were 

requested to support disablement and dismantlement of the North 

Korean nuclear weapons program. 

International nuclear fuel bank 

The committee is pleased to note that international support for 

the IAEA international fuel bank continued to grow and over 

$100.0 million has now been raised so that the Nuclear Threat Initiative challenge to provide $50.0 million for the fuel bank has been 

met. With the required funding in hand the IAEA has taken the 

first initial steps to formulate plans to implement the fuel bank. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to provide to the 

congressional defense committees, brief quarterly updates on the 

progress implementing the fuel bank over the course of the next 2 

years. The first quarterly report shall be due April 1, 2010 and the 

last quarterly update shall be due December 31, 2012. 

Naval reactors 

The committee recommends $1.0 billion for naval reactors, the 

amount of the budget request. The committee notes that the Office 

of Naval Reactors has begun design work to support a new strategic ballistic missile submarine, in advance of the Nuclear Posture 

Review (NPR). While this work is premature from a policy perspective, the committee understands that the work must start this year 

to support the replacement schedule for the current SSBN fleet 

should the NPR determine that a follow-on ballistic missile submarine is needed. 

Office of the Administrator 

The committee recommends $420.8 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 the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year 2010 

for defense environmental cleanup, a decrease of $100.0 million 

below the amount of the budget request. Without the approximately $6.0 billion in funds received under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)(Public Law 111–5) the DOE 

office of Environmental Management (EM) would be at risk of not 

meeting a number of milestones in various compliance agreements. 

With these funds, however, EM will be able to not only reduce its 

backlog of projects but in many instances will be able to accelerate 

projects, particularly decommissioning projects. EM plans to obligate and expend the ARRA funds over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

As a result, the effective EM annual budget is approximately $8.0 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
252 

billion for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, a substantial increase 

from prior years. 

While the committee recognizes that need for additional funds for 

the EM program generally, the committee is concerned about the 

ability of the EM program to manage and oversee this substantial 

increase, particularly in light of the fact that the EM office is 

understaffed to manage the regular budget request. As a result, the 

committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million in the fiscal 

year 2010 budget request as the committee believes there is a low 

probability that all of the AARA funds and the amount included in 

the budget request could be obligated and expended by the end of 

fiscal year 2010 or a reasonable period of time thereafter. 

Waste Treatment Plant 

The committee is aware of a design review that EM is carrying 

out at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) at the Department of Energy Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. The purpose of this review is to simplify the operations of the pretreatment facility. One 

aspect of the review is a reassessment of the material at risk 

(MAR), to determine if the level of radioactivity in the waste to be 

treated is in fact as high as was previously assumed. This review 

will also look at the application of the integrated safety management process and determine if certain of the safety systems could 

be downgraded, if the MAR is modified. The EM office is currently 

developing a schedule to review, modify, and approve: the MAR, 

the pre-treatment plant design revision, the equipment design 

modification, and a plan for procurement, fabrication, and installation of equipment. Simplification of operations is a laudable goal 

but the committee is very concerned about this entire process and 

the possibility that in the long run the changes made could reduce 

operational or environmental safety, complicate long term operations, and possibly increase the overall cost of the WTP or delay 

the schedule for the waste treatment plant. 

The committee notes that EM has recently committed to take a 

more cautious approach than originally planned and will use an 

independent review panel to look at the technical, safety, near- and 

long-term operational effects, and cost and schedule implications of 

any changes or revisions. 

The Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB), as the statutory review body for operational nuclear safety at DOE defense 

nuclear facilities, must also have adequate time to review fully all 

aspects of this process, including all documents and the results of 

all studies, including the results of the independent review before 

any changes are adopted or implemented. Only after complete review will the DNFSB be in a position to make a recommendation 

on the advisability of any proposed changes or modifications. 

The committee expects this whole process to be carried out expeditiously but also thoroughly and expects 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 

$852.5 million for other defense activities, the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends $449.9 million for health, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
253 

safety and security, the amount of the budget request; $189.8 million for Legacy Management, the amount of the budget request; 

$6.4 million for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the amount of 

the budget request; $83.4 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, 

the amount of the budget request; $123.0 million for departmental 

administration, the amount of the budget request. 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$98.4 million to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for the defense contribution to the effort to permanently dispose of high level nuclear waste. 

Funding table (sec. 3105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that 

the amounts authorized for the Department of Energy in this title 

are available for the projects, programs, or activities and in the dollar amounts indicated by the funding tables in Division D of the 

Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec. 

3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy to carry out a life extension program, to develop a life extension program plan and direct the manner in which 

funds for the life extension programs should be requested in the 

annual Department of Energy budget request. This provision recognizes that the nuclear weapons stockpile is aging and that the existing efforts to extend or repair weapons will need to continue. 

The provision also directs the Secretary to establish mechanisms to 

ensure the appropriate assignment of roles and missions for each 

laboratory plant. Clear lines of responsibility should be established 

to avoid duplication and overlap of activity. The committee is concerned that there is unneeded duplication of effort and not enough 

true peer review. Finally to ensure that there is true and rigorous 

peer review the provision would direct that each lab has full access 

to all data and information about each nuclear weapon available. 

The committee believes that as the stockpile draws down the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) should increase the 

level of intensity of surveillance activities to improve the knowledge of the aging stockpile. The committee is also concerned that 

there may be missed opportunities to make the stockpile more secure through surety improvements in the weapons themselves. As 

a result the committee recommends increases in various weapons 

activities accounts that deal with surveillance, certification, and 

surety. Other elements of work that should be included in the life 

extension program include efforts to reduce the complexity of the 

weapons and change as possible the use of exotic and toxic materials. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
254 

Elimination of nuclear weapons life extension program from 

exception to requirement to request funds in budget of 

the President (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4209 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2529) to 

eliminate the nuclear weapons life extension program exception in 

the budget request. This provision would have relieved the President from specifically requesting funds for life extension programs. 

In recent years, the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives have in fact required that the funds 

be specifically requested, as a result this provision is no longer necessary. 

Repeal of reliable replacement warhead program (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

4204A of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2524a) directing the Department of Energy to establish a reliable replacement 

warhead program. 

Authorization of use of International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program funds for bilateral and 

multilateral nonproliferation and disarmament activities (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Energy to obligate not more than 10 percent of the 

funds authorized to be appropriated for the international nuclear 

materials protection and cooperation program for any bilateral or 

multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation or disarmament, 

notwithstanding any other provision of law. The Secretary may exercise this authority after notifying the congressional defense committees 15 days in advance of the intent to exercise this authority 

and if the President certifies the action is necessary to support the 

national security objectives of the United States. 

The committee believes that additional flexibility is needed to ensure there are adequate funds available to address urgent immediate requirements for which funds might not otherwise be available or are inadequate. Similar authority has been provided to the 

Secretary of Defense elsewhere in this bill. 

Repeal of prohibition on funding activities associated with 

international cooperative stockpile stewardship (sec. 

3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

4301 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2561). This provision repeals a prohibition on a program that no longer exists. 

Modification of minor construction threshold for plant 

projects (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4701(3) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2741(3)) 

to modify permanently the threshold for general plant projects from 

$5.0 million to $7.0 million. The committee notes that for fiscal 

year 2009 this threshold was temporarily increased to $10.0 million. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
255 

Two-year extension of authority for appointment of certain 

scientific, engineering, and technical personnel (sec. 

3117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

September 30, 2011, the authority for the Secretary of Energy to 

hire, establish, and set rates of pay for not more than 200 positions 

in the Department of Energy for scientific, engineering, and technical personnel whose duties will relate to safety at defense nuclear 

facilities. 

Repeal of sunset date for consolidation of counterintelligence programs of Department of Energy and National 

Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

3117 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). When the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was created there was a separate office of counterintelligence established in the NNSA and another office of counterintelligence for the Department of Energy 

(DOE). In 2006, DOE and NNSA determined that it would be more 

efficient to combine these offices into one office of counterintelligence that served the entire DOE. Congress agreed to the consolidation in Section 3117 of Public Law 109–364, but to ensure that 

the new single office would effectively serve all of the DOE entities, 

the authority for the consolidated office would expire at the end of 

fiscal year 2010. 

The committee believes that the consolidated office has been effective and understands that both the Secretary of Energy and the 

Administrator of the NNSA support the integrated counterintelligence office. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Ten-year plan for utilization and funding of certain Department of Energy facilities (sec. 3131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) and the Under Secretary of Science (USS) at the Department of Energy to jointly develop a plan to use and fund, over a 

10-year period, the National Ignition Facility at the Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center at the 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the ‘‘Z’’ Machine at the 

Sandia National Laboratory. The committee notes that these three 

facilities are primarily funded and maintained by NNSA, but each 

of these has significant contributions to the science and energy research communities. The committee believes that the NNSA Administrator and the USS should explore how these unique facilities 

could be used and supported collaboratively to ensure that the capabilities of the facilities are fully utilized. 

Review of management and operation of certain national 

laboratories (sec. 3132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Armed Services ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
256 

mittees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, to appoint 

an independent panel of experts to conduct a review of the management and operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Sandia National 

Laboratory. 

The committee notes that several recent studies have focused on 

the organizational location of the three labs but not on their actual 

management and operations. The committee believes that the labs 

should remain under the Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, but believes that a review of the lab operations is timely. 

Inclusion in 2010 stockpile stewardship plan of certain information relating to stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 

3133) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Energy to include, in the annual stockpile stewardship 

plan for fiscal year 2010, an update on the stewardship criteria 

used to assess the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear 

weapons stockpile. The last update of the criteria was completed in 

2005. The 2010 plan would also include a review of each sciencebased tool, such as experimental facilities, developed or modified in 

the last 5 years. 

The committee believes that as the stockpile ages and the total 

number of nuclear weapons in the stockpile decreases, the Department of Energy should articulate clear criteria for the stockpile 

stewardship program going forward. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of projects 

carried out by the Office of Environmental Management 

of the Department of Energy pursuant to the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sec. 3134) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General to review and report on the efforts of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management 

(EM) to identify and implement cleanup projects using the funds 

received pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). The review would occur in three 

phases. The first phase is an initial review focused on the criteria 

used for project selection and the process to develop cost and schedules for the projects. The second phase would be an ongoing review 

of the project implementation with quarterly reports on the ongoing 

work. The committee expects these quarterly reports to be short 

letter reports that give a very brief status of the projects, including 

jobs generated and preserved. The third and final phase of the review would be a recap of the entire effort that would look at areas 

such as cost and schedule compliance and how the overall effort 

has led to an accelerated cleanup schedule. The committee wants 

to ensure that the funds are used to generate both jobs and necessary cleanup work. 

The committee supports the work of the EM Office to accelerate 

the cleanup effort and utilize the funds to reduce the overall footprint of the DOE complex, thus reducing maintenance costs and 

providing for worker health and safety. The committee notes that 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
257 

the majority of on-the-job injuries in the DOE complex occur as a 

result of work being done in and around old buildings that are no 

longer used and no longer maintained. 

Identification in budget materials of amounts for certain 

Department of Energy pension obligations (sec. 3135) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

funding needed to meet pension obligations of contractor employees 

at each Department of Energy (DOE) facility operated using funds 

authorized in the National Defense Authorization Acts for environmental management be included in the DOE budget materials. 

DOE is continuing a process, started approximately 3 years ago, 

to no longer provide defined benefit pension plans for newly hired 

contractor employees at DOE contractor operated sites and facilities. As the workforce in the older defined benefit plans age and 

retire the defined benefit plans will require more funds as the ratio 

of retirees to active workers continues to shift toward retirees. Already at the Savannah River Site there are more retirees than active employees. With the downturn in the economy, the situation 

has gotten worse as the investments that support these plans have 

lost value. As a result of this situation, these defined benefit plans 

will continue to be more expensive as the amount of new contributions decreases and more of the workforce retires. In the long run, 

DOE believes that the shift to defined contribution plans will be 

less costly. 

To understand and manage the costs of the pension obligations, 

particularly the defined benefit plans, the committee directs that 

the amount of the projected pension obligations be spelled out in 

the budget justification materials for each environmental management funded site. 

Item of Special Interest 

W–76 

The committee notes that the W–76 warhead for the submarine 

launched Trident D–5 missile recently started a major life extension effort. Planning for the life-extension took over 5 years and 

cost in excess of a billion dollars. The first production unit was late 

as a result of the delay in replicating a legacy material known as 

fogbank. A decision was made to use this material although the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) developed a substitute for the fogbank that would have simplified future life extensions and long-term maintenance. The committee directs that the 

Administrator of the NNSA review this decision and report to the 

committee no later than August 1, 2009, on the results of the review. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(259) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY 

BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$26.1 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(DNFSB) the amount of the budget request. 

The committee continues to support the work of the DNFSB and 

the rigorous oversight that the DNFSB brings to the operational 

nuclear safety of defense nuclear facilities. The funds requested 

will allow the DNFSB to increase its staff by approximately 10 positions, still well below the statutory personnel cap of 150. DNFSB 

brings a consultative, interactive, technically competent approach 

to oversight that is well suited to the work at Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities. Most of the DOE defense nuclear facilities are one of a kind with unique and technically complex operations. On the other hand, facilities that are more commercial-like, such as the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, 

have been statutorily directed to be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a result, the committee does not support a 

new regulatory oversight regime for defense nuclear facilities absent extensive and careful review, consideration, and discussion. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(261) 

TITLE XXXIII—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(263) 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in 

accordance with the tables in Division D of the bill, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by agency heads to 

commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis 

of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based selection procedures in accordance 

with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, 

United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. 

Item of Special Interest 

Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate 

In accordance with the requirements of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, this report includes a table listing additional funding for items requested by Senators, along with the intended recipient and intended location of performance identified in 

connection with each such request. This information is provided as 

an indication of the intention of the requesting Senator, not the intention of the committee. The information in this table will be posted on the website of the Committee on Armed Services after the 

committee votes to report the bill. 

In addition, the committee has requested that each member requesting additional funding for items in this bill provide a certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator’s immediate family 

has a pecuniary interest in the item, as required by Rule XLIV of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee has received the 

requested certification from each Senator requesting funding for 

items that is provided in this bill. These certifications will also be 

posted on the website of the Committee on Armed Services after 

the committee votes to report the bill. 

By including a table of requested funding items at the end of the 

report and posting Member certifications relative to such funding 

items on the committee website, the committee takes no position as 

to which of these items, if any, meet the definition of a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff 

benefit in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee directs the Department of Defense to use all applicable competitive, merit-based procedures in the award of any new contract, 

grant, or other agreement entered into with funds authorized to be 

appropriated by this bill. No provision in the bill or report shall be 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
264 

construed to direct funds to any particular location or entity unless 

the provision expressly so provides. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(265) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

Procurement (sec. 4101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

I of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 105 

and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the 

administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for procurement programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 

procurement for overseas contingency operations programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or 

decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(267) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

II of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 201 

and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the 

administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for research, 

development, test, and evaluation programs and indicates those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas 

contingency operations (sec. 4202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations programs and indicates those programs for which the 

committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(269) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

III of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 301 

and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested by the 

administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for operation 

and maintenance programs and indicates those programs for which 

the committee either increased or decreased the requested 

amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either 

increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(271) 

TITLE XLIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Other authorizations (sec. 4401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XIV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

1407 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 

other authorizations programs and indicates those programs for 

which the committee either increased or decreased the requested 

amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations 

(sec. 4402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XV of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

1514 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 

other authorizations for overseas contingency operations programs 

and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(273) 

TITLE XLV—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military construction (sec. 4501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in titles 

XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act, in accordance 

with the requirements of sections 2004 and 4001. The provision 

also displays the funding requested by the administration in the 

fiscal year 2010 budget request for military construction programs 

and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

2005 base realignment and closure round FY 2010 project 

listing (sec. 4502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XXVII of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

2004 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 

2005 base realignment and closure round fiscal year 2010 project 

listing programs and indicates those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act military construction (sec. 4503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5) in accordance with the requirements of sections 2004 and 

4001. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
274 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations 

(sec. 4504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XIX of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

2004 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for 

military construction programs and indicates those programs for 

which the committee either increased or decreased the requested 

amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(275) 

TITLE XLVI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 

4601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

program-level detailed guidance for the funding authorized in title 

XXXI of this Act, in accordance with the requirements of sections 

3105 and 4001. The provision also displays the funding requested 

by the administration in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for Department of Energy national security programs and indicates those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 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 DOD) without a reprogramming action in accordance 

with established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice. 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

By letter dated May 13, 2009, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed 

legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 1673 to the Committee 

on Armed Services on May 20, 2009. 

Executive Communication 1673 is available for review at the 

committee. 

Committee Action 

The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original bill 

and a series of original bills for the Department of Defense, military construction and Department of Energy authorizations by 

voice vote. 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 passed unanimously by roll call vote, 26– 

0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, 

Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, 

McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, 

Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, 

Burr, Vitter and Collins. Opposed: None. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
276 

The 5 other roll call votes on motions and amendments to the bill 

which were considered during the course of the 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, 20–5. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall 

of Colorado, Begich, Burris, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, 

Martinez, Wicker, and Burr. 

Opposed: Senators McCaskill, McCain, Graham, Vitter, and Collins. 

2. MOTION: To fully fund 7 additional F–22 aircraft. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 13–11. 

In Favor: Senators Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Begich, Inhofe, 

Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, Martinez, Wicker, Burr, Vitter and 

Collins. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson 

of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall of Colorado, Hagan, 

and McCain. 

3. MOTION: To include additional funds in Navy and Air Force 

research, development, test and evaluation accounts for alternate 

engine development of the Joint Strike Fighter. 

VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 12–10. 

In Favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Nelson of Florida, 

Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Thune, Wicker, and Vitter. 

Opposed: Senators Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Nebraska, 

Udall of Colorado, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Martinez, and Collins. 

4. MOTION: To restore the $45 million reduction for construction 

of the Brigade Complex at Fort Stewart, Georgia. 

VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 9–14. 

In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, 

Martinez, Wicker, Vitter, and Collins. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, Udall 

of Colorado, Hagan, Begich and Burris. 

5. MOTION: To prohibit the establishment of an outlying landing 

field at Sandbanks or Hale’s Lake, North Carolina. 

VOTE: Failed on a roll call vote, 6–19. 

In Favor: Senators Udall of Colorado, Hagan, Begich, Burris, 

Chambliss, and Burr. 

Opposed: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Bayh, Webb, 

McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Graham, Thune, Martinez, 

Vitter, and Collins. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during floor debate on the legislation. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
277 

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 2010. 

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. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
278 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 337 here 50630.001
279 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 338 here 50630.002
280 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 339 here 50630.003
281 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 340 here 50630.004
282 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 341 here 50630.005
283 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 342 here 50630.006
284 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 343 here 50630.007
285 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 344 here 50630.008
286 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 345 here 50630.009
287 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 346 here 50630.010
288 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 347 here 50630.011
289 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 348 here 50630.012
290 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 349 here 50630.013
291 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 350 here 50630.014
292 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 351 here 50630.015
293 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 352 here 50630.016
294 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 353 here 50630.017
295 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 354 here 50630.018
296 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 355 here 50630.019
297 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 356 here 50630.020
298 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 357 here 50630.021
299 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 358 here 50630.022
300 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 359 here 50630.023
301 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 360 here 50630.024
302 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 361 here 50630.025
303 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 362 here 50630.026
304 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 363 here 50630.027
305 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 364 here 50630.028
306 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 365 here 50630.029
307 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 366 here 50630.030
308 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 367 here 50630.031
309 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 368 here 50630.032
310 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 369 here 50630.033
311 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 370 here 50630.034
312 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 371 here 50630.035
313 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 372 here 50630.036
314 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 373 here 50630.037
315 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 374 here 50630.038
316 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 375 here 50630.039
317 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 376 here 50630.040
318 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 377 here 50630.041
319 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 378 here 50630.042
320 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 379 here 50630.043
321 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 380 here 50630.044
322 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 381 here 50630.045
323 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 382 here 50630.046
324 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 383 here 50630.047
(325) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHAMBLISS 

In relation to the report language in the bill directing the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a plan for executing the Air Sovereignty Alert mission, I encourage the Air Force to give particular 

consideration in their plan to the ‘‘5 Corners’’ plan in which Air 

Sovereignty Alert aircraft, to include F–22’s or F–35’s the Air National Guard receives for executing that mission, are based at strategic, coastal locations in the United States, specifically Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Louisiana, and Florida, as well as in 

Alaska and Hawaii. 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(326) 

1Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator David Vitter, Senator John Cornyn, 

and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. THUNE 

I appreciate the Committee passing my Next Generation Bomber 

Amendment and my Air Force Alternative Aviation Fuel Amendment during markup of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. These additional views provide further context to 

my amendments. 

Thune Next Generation Bomber Amendment 

My amendment that has been accepted by the committee regarding the Next Generation Bomber is based on legislation I introduced earlier this year known as the Preserving Future United 

States Capability to Project Power Globally Act of 2009 (S. 1044). 

As my amendment states, ‘‘[t]he 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 

found that there was a requirement for a next generation bomber 

aircraft and directed the United States Air Force to ‘develop a new 

land-based, penetrating long range strike capability to be fielded by 

2018.’ ’’ As an advocate for preserving our nation’s future long 

range strike capability, I strongly disagree with the Obama Administration’s proposal to terminate the Next Generation Bomber program. Their justification for this proposal, on page 44 of the Office 

of Management and Budget’s ‘‘Terminations, Reductions, and Savings’’ document for FY10, cites a Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) conclusion that the Department of Defense’s weapons acquisition program, including the future bomber fleet, ‘‘may not be affordable over the next six years’’ and states that ‘‘[n]ot pursuing 

this [Next Generation Bomber] program will result in savings of 

several hundred million dollars through 2013.’’ 

I believe the Obama Administration’s decision to terminate the 

Next Generation Bomber is a reflection of the austere approach the 

administration has taken toward the funding of the Department of 

Defense, rather than an approach based on the National Defense 

Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. President 

Obama’s proposed 2010 defense budget increase is substantially 

less than the robust 6.7% increase in the overall budget. In my 

view, our nation’s strategic long range strike capability is eroding 

at an alarming rate. As I wrote in a March 26, 2009 letter to President Obama, signed by a bipartisan group of five other Senators,1

almost half of our current bomber inventory pre-dates the Cuban 

Missile Crisis of 1962. There are only 16 combat ready B–2 bombers currently available with vital stealth technology to hold targets 

deep in heavily defended airspace at risk. Allowing this long range 

strike capability to further erode due to budget considerations, 

where less pressing priorities are robustly funded by the adminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:55 Jul 03, 2009 Jkt 050630 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR035.XXX SR035

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
327 

tration at the expense of our nation’s long range strike capability, 

is a mistake we cannot afford to make. 

Preserving a credible long range strike capability is important 

because, while our current wars are being fought in undefended 

airspace, the conflicts of the near-term future will likely feature 

heavily defended airspace, due in large part to the proliferation of 

relatively inexpensive, but extremely sophisticated and deadly air 

defense systems. These and other emerging anti-access capabilities 

drive the need for a Next Generation Bomber. Secretary Robert 

Gates, who I admire and respect, has publicly acknowledged the 

need for a Next Generation Bomber on at least four separate occasions: • In a September 29, 2008, speech at National Defense University, Secretary Gates said that ‘‘[i]n the case of China, investments in cyber- and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and 

anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could 

threaten America’s primary means to project power and help 

allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. This will put a premium on America’s ability to strike from over the horizon, employ missile defenses, and will require shifts from short-range to longer-range 

systems such as the next generation bomber.’’ (Emphasis added) • In the January/February 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs, 

in an article entitled ‘‘A Balanced Strategy; Reprogramming 

the Pentagon for a New Age,’’ Secretary Gates wrote that ‘‘[i]n 

the case of China, Beijing’s investments in cyberwarfare, antisatellite warfare, antiaircraft and antiship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten the United 

States primary means to project its power and help its allies 

in the Pacific: bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that 

support them. This will put a premium on the United States 

ability to strike from over the horizon and employ missile defenses and will require shifts from short-range to longer-range 

systems, such as the next generation bomber.’’ (Emphasis 

added) 

• In the First Quarter 2009 edition of Joint Force Quarterly, 

in an article entitled ‘‘The National Defense Strategy; Striking 

the Right Balance,’’ Secretary Gates wrote that ‘‘[i]n the case 

of China, investments in cyber and antisatellite warfare, antiair and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles 

could threaten America’s primary means to project power and 

help our allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets, and 

the networks that support them. This will put a premium on 

America’s ability to strike from over the horizon and employ 

missile defenses; and it will require shifts from short-range to 

longer range systems such as the next generation bomber’’. (Emphasis added) 

• During a May 14, 2009 Senate Armed Services Hearing on 

the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2010 and 

the Future Years Defense Program, Secretary Gates testified 

that ‘‘My own personal view is we probably do need a followon bomber.’’ (Emphasis added) 

Until the 2009 QDR is completed and released next year, the 

2006 document is the only framework we have for judging how well 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
328 

the military’s airpower capabilities meet national requirements. I 

believe we must undertake the task of developing a new long range 

strike capability by 2018, based in substantial part on the arguments Secretary Gates has made since October of last year. This 

view is reinforced by the views of the commanders of the United 

States Pacific Command, the United States Strategic Command 

and the United States Joint Forces Command, who have each testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year in support of the capability that the next generation bomber aircraft 

would provide. General James Cartwright, Vice-Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, and chair of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, has also testified before the Senate Armed Services 

Committee this year that ‘‘the nation needs a new bomber.’’ 

Maintaining the Triad 

Secretary Gates also stated at the same May 14 Senate Armed 

Services hearing mentioned above that the negotiations with Russia regarding the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 

(START) to further reduce the number of nuclear weapons, are 

going to ‘‘raise the question whether we still need a triad, depending on the number of deployed nuclear weapons that we need.’’ I 

believe that the triad of strategic delivery systems (bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles) should be maintained, for the reasons set forth by the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, in its final report to Congress. 

With regard to bombers, the Commission states unequivocally on 

page 25 of its report that it has ‘‘reviewed arguments in favor of 

a dyad but recommends retention of the current triad. Each leg of 

the triad has its own value: The bomber force is valuable particularly for extending deterrence in time of crisis, as their deployment 

is visible and signals U.S. commitment. Bombers also impose a significant cost burden on potential adversaries in terms of the need 

to invest in advanced air defenses.’’ It is my fervent hope that the 

Obama Administration will not negotiate away the bomber leg of 

the triad during talks on the follow-on START treaty. 

Delays in START Negotiations 

Secretary Gates’ proposal to subject decisions on our current 

strategic and nuclear-force structure, including the Next Generation Bomber, to post-START arms-control talks also appears problematic due to the foreseeable delays that could occur in negotiating the follow-on treaty. While seemingly reasonable on its face, 

waiting until a new START treaty is negotiated could, literally, 

take years. Appearing before the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last fall, Secretary Gates himself expressed concern 

about how long the original START negotiations took, and what 

that meant for the follow-on START treaty about to be negotiated. 

The lead START negotiator, likewise, has indicated that negotiations over the follow-on treaty could be delayed. I do not believe the 

Next Generation Bomber program should be delayed by negotiations with Russia over the follow-on START treaty, particularly if 

it becomes clear that negotiations will extend past the December 

5, 2009 expiration of the current treaty. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
329 

The Nation Needs a New Bomber 

During his appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 14, 2009, Secretary Gates said that ‘‘[t]he idea of a 

next-generation bomber, as far as I’m concerned, is a very open 

question, and the recommendation will come out of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review.’’ As the Administration develops a new QDR to inform FY 2011 budget decisions, I believe that the record that has been developed before the 

Armed Services Committee since January of this year, along with 

the Committee’s passage of my amendment with regard to the Next 

Generation Bomber, provides compelling evidence of the need and 

requirement for a new bomber, and should ultimately be validated 

by the new QDR. As we move forward with the FY 2010 National 

Defense Authorization Act, and observe further decisions by the 

Obama Administration on the Next Generation Bomber program, I 

will continue the fight to preserve this important long range strike 

capability. 

Thune Air Force Alternative Aviation Fuel Amendment 

I appreciate the committee accepting an amendment I offered 

that seeks to advance two innovations being made by the Air Force 

regarding alternative aviation fuel. My amendment represents an 

effort to enact into law current innovative Air Force programs that 

will help alleviate America’s growing energy problems. 

We need to move toward secure, domestic energy sources. One 

need look no further than last year’s oil price spikes, the oil embargoes of the 1970’s, or the effect recent Russian-Ukraine natural gas 

disputes had on the European continent to see the peril of relying 

on unsecure, foreign sources for the preponderance of our energy 

needs. Continuing to fund foreign regimes unfriendly to the U.S. 

grows more untenable by the day, and we must decrease this capital flight. 

This amendment advances two innovations being made by the 

Air Force. First, the amendment moves the Air Force toward domestic, synthetic fuels. The amendment sets the goal that the Air 

Force certify its entire fleet on a 50/50 synthetic blend by early 

2011. The Air Force has already certified the B–1, B–52, C–17, F– 

15, and F–16. The amendment also sets the goal that the USAF 

acquire half of its domestic fuel requirement from a domestically 

sourced synthetic fuel blend by 2016. It is important to note the 

amendment contains the following limitations: 

• Synthetic fuels would only be acquired if the fuel is the 

same cost or less than conventional fuels and if they have a 

‘‘greener’’ lifecycle than conventional fuels. 

• The synthetic fuels procured can be based on any feedstock. 

My amendment also encourages the Navy and Army to advance 

similar innovations with regard to alternative aviation fuels. We 

should seek to understand how the Army and Navy can also use 

these alternative aviation fuels, and how the buying power of the 

entire Department of Defense can achieve efficiencies and decreased costs due to large economies of scale. The amendment calls 

on the Navy and Army to annually report on each department’s 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
330 

goals and progress to research, test, and certify the use of alternative fuels in their respective aircraft fleets. 

The amendment also requests the Defense Science Board to assess the achievability and impact of the goals with implementation 

recommendations while there is still time to make program 

changes. The amendment requires the Defense Science Board to report on the feasibility and impact of reaching the Air Force’s alternative energy goals. This report is due in 2011, five years prior to 

the Air Force 2016 goal. 

This amendment is a responsible use of public policy to take a 

step toward solving our energy crisis. This amendment will help to 

save the government money as any fuels procured will be at or less 

than the cost of conventional petroleum fuels. This amendment will 

help to preserve the environment as any fuels procured must be 

‘‘greener’’ than conventional petroleum fuels throughout their 

lifecycle. 

I look forward to continuing work on this and other important 

defense energy initiatives. 

JOHN THUNE. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS