T Increment 3 program, not more than 20 percent of 
those amounts may be obligated or expended until 15 days 
after the notification required by subsection (a) is received 
by the congressional defense committees. 
SEC. 216. LIMITATION ON SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN 
JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT EXPENDITURES. 
Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to an author-
ization of appropriations in this Act or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year thereafter 
for the Army, the Secretary of the Army may fund the 
following Joint Cargo Aircraft expenditures only through 
amounts made available for procurement or for research, 
development, test, and evaluation: support equipment, ini-
tial spares, training simulators, systems engineering and 
management, and post-production modifications. 
Subtitle C—Missile Defense 
Programs 
SEC. 221. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF BOOST PHASE MISSILE 
DEFENSE. 
(a) AGREEMENT REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Defense shall enter into an agreement with a Federally 
Funded Research and Development Center to conduct an 
independent study of concepts and systems for boost phase 
missile defense.
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDY.— 
(1) SYSTEMS TO BE EXAMINED.—The study re-
quired by subsection (a) shall examine each of the 
following systems: 
(A) The Airborne Laser. 
(B) The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (land- 
and sea-based options). 
(2) FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED.—The study 
shall evaluate each system based on the following 
factors: 
(A) Technical capability of the system 
against 
scenarios 
identified 
in 
paragraph 
(3)(A). 
(B) Operational issues, including oper-
ational effectiveness. 
(C) Results of key milestone tests in fiscal 
year 2009 and fiscal years prior. 
(D) Survivability. 
(E) Suitability. 
(F) Concept-of-Operations, including bas-
ing considerations. 
(G) Operations and maintenance support. 
(H) Command-and-Control. 
(I) Shortfall from intercepts. 
(J) Force structure requirements.
(K) Effectiveness against countermeasures. 
(L) Estimated cost of sustaining the sys-
tem in the field. 
(M) Total lifecycle cost estimates. 
(3) SCENARIOS TO BE ASSESSED.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The study shall in-
clude, for each system, an assessment of the 
operational capabilities of the system— 
(i) to counter short-, medium-, and in-
termediate-range ballistic missile threats to 
the deployed forces of the United States 
and its friends and allies from rogue 
states; and 
(ii) to defend the territory of the 
United States against limited ballistic mis-
sile attack. 
(B) COMPARISON
WITH
NON-BOOST
SYS-
TEMS.—The study shall also include an assess-
ment of the performance and operational capa-
bilities of non-boost missile defense systems to 
counter the threats referred to in subparagraph 
(A), and shall compare those capabilities with 
the predicted performance and operational ca-
pabilities of the boost phase missile defense sys-
tems to counter those threats. For purposes of
this subparagraph, the non-boost missile de-
fense systems shall include, at a minimum— 
(i) the Patriot PAC–3 system and the 
Medium Extended Air Defense System 
(MEADS) follow-on system; 
(ii) the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 
system, with all variants of the Standard 
Missile-3 interceptor; 
(iii) the Terminal High Altitude Area 
Defense (THAAD) system; and 
(iv) the Ground-based Midcourse De-
fense system. 
(4) ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.— 
The study shall include the following: 
(A) Assessment of the developmental ef-
forts to date and feasibility of the currently 
funded boost phase missile defense systems, 
using the factors outlined in paragraph (2). 
(B) Assessment of the cost and benefits of 
the currently funded boost phase missile de-
fense systems. 
(C) A recommended strategy for boost 
phase missile defense investment over the Fu-
ture Years Defense Program.
(D) Any other matter that the Federally 
Funded Research and Development Center con-
siders appropriate. 
(c) COOPERATION FROM GOVERNMENT.—In carrying 
out the study, the Federally Funded Research and Devel-
opment Center shall receive the full and timely cooperation 
of the Secretary of Defense and any other United States 
Government official in providing the Center with analyses, 
briefings, and other information necessary for the fulfill-
ment of its responsibilities. 
(d) REPORT.—Not later than January 31, 2010, the 
Federally Funded Research and Development Center shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The re-
port shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classi-
fied annex. 
(e) PROHIBITION.—No funds appropriated pursuant 
to an authorization of appropriations in this Act or other-
wise made available for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year 
thereafter may be obligated or expended for the acquisi-
tion of the second Airborne Laser aircraft until 60 days 
after the report required by this section is submitted.
SEC. 222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 
PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND DE-
PLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSES IN EU-
ROPE. 
(a) GENERAL LIMITATION.—No funds authorized to 
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available 
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 or any 
fiscal year thereafter may be obligated or expended for 
procurement, site activation, construction, preparation of 
equipment for, or deployment of a long-range missile de-
fense system in Europe until the following conditions have 
been met: 
(1) The Government of Poland and the Govern-
ment of the Czech Republic have each signed and 
ratified the missile defense basing agreements and 
status of forces agreements that allow for the sta-
tioning, in their respective countries, of the United 
States missile defense assets and personnel needed 
to carry out the proposed deployment. 
(2) Forty-five days have elapsed following the 
receipt by the congressional defense committees of 
the report required by section 226(c)(6) of the Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110–181). 
(b) ADDITIONAL LIMITATION.—In addition to the 
limitation in subsection (a), no funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 may be obli-
gated or expended for the acquisition or deployment of 
operational missiles of a long-range missile defense system 
in Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving 
the views of the Director of Operational Test and Evalua-
tion, submits to the congressional defense committees a 
report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be de-
ployed as part of such missile defense system has dem-
onstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight 
testing, a high probability of working in an operationally 
effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission. 
(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to limit continuing obligation and expenditure 
of funds for missile defense, including for research and 
development and for other activities not otherwise limited 
by subsection (a) or (b), including, but not limited to, site 
surveys, studies, analysis, and planning and design for the 
proposed missile defense deployment in Europe. 
Subtitle D—Other Matters 
SEC. 231. OVERSIGHT OF TESTING OF PERSONNEL PROTEC-
TIVE 
EQUIPMENT 
BY 
DIRECTOR, 
OPER-
ATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION. 
(a) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR, OPER-
ATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, WITH RESPECT TO
PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.—Section 139 of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)(2) by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(C) The term ‘covered system’ means a 
Department of Defense acquisition program 
that is a covered system for purposes of section 
2366 of this title or that is an item of personnel 
protective equipment designated as a covered 
system by the Secretary of Defense, or the Sec-
retary’s designee, for purposes of this section.’’; 
and 
(2) in subsection (b)— 
(A) by striking paragraph (3); 
(B) 
by 
redesignating 
paragraphs 
(4) 
through (7) as (3) through (6), respectively; 
and 
(C) by amending paragraph (6) (as so re-
designated) to read as follows: 
‘‘(6) monitor and review the survivability and 
lethality testing of covered systems, major munition 
programs, and covered product improvement pro-
grams of the Department of Defense provided under 
section 2366 of this title.’’.
(b) INCLUSION OF PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIP-
MENT IN SURVIVABILITY TESTING REQUIRED BEFORE 
FULL-SCALE PRODUCTION.—Section 2366 of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subsection (e) by amending paragraph 
(1) to read as follows: 
‘‘(1) The term ‘covered system’ means— 
‘‘(A) a vehicle, weapon platform, or con-
ventional weapon system— 
‘‘(i) that includes features designed to 
provide some degree of protection to users 
in combat; and 
‘‘(ii) that is a major system within the 
meaning of that term in section 2302(5) of 
this title; or 
‘‘(B) an item of personnel protective equip-
ment designated as a covered system in accord-
ance with section 139(a)(2)(C) of this title.’’; 
and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) PERSONNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.—In the 
case of an item of personnel protective equipment des-
ignated as a covered system, if, before a decision to pro-
ceed beyond low rate initial production, a decision is made 
within the Department of Defense to proceed to oper-
ational use of that equipment or to make procurement 
funds available for that equipment— 
‘‘(1) the milestone decision authority (as de-
fined in Department of Defense Directive 5000.1, 
dated May 12, 2003) for the associated acquisition 
program shall notify the Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation of such a decision, along with 
supporting rationale; and 
‘‘(2) the Director of Operational Test and Eval-
uation shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and 
the congressional defense committees the report re-
quired by subsection (d) as soon as practicable.’’. 
SEC. 232. ASSESSMENT OF THE HISTORICALLY BLACK COL-
LEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY 
SERVING INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of De-
fense shall— 
(1) carry out an assessment of the capability of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Mi-
nority Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI) to partici-
pate in research, development, test, and evaluation 
programs for the Department of Defense; and 
(2) not later than twelve months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, submit to the congres-
sional defense committees a report on the assess-
ment. 
(b) MATTERS ASSESSED.—The report under sub-
section (a) shall include the following: 
(1) Summarized findings and lessons learned 
from HBCU/MI programs based on contracts, 
grants, or cooperative agreement awards. 
(2) An assessment of the relevance, to include 
outcomes and impacts, of those programs to the re-
search mission of the Department. 
(3) An assessment of the national and regional 
conferences held annually to provide technical assist-
ance and information regarding research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation activities of the Depart-
ment, including the following: 
(A) The number of such conferences held 
over the last three years, and a description of 
each such conference, to include a description of 
activities conducted to meet the goals of the 
conference. 
(B) A follow-up assessment of the success 
of such conferences from the perspective both of 
the Department and of the attending institu-
tions.
(C) An assessment as to whether such con-
ferences are appropriately targeted to institu-
tions that have not historically received con-
tracts, grants or cooperative agreements with 
the Department. 
(4) As directed in Executive Order No. 13256, 
a plan documenting the Department’s effort in in-
creasing the capacity of HBCU/MIs to participate in 
the research programs of the Department. 
(5) Any other matters the Secretary considers 
appropriate. 
SEC. 233. TECHNOLOGY-NEUTRAL INFORMATION TECH-
NOLOGY GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS TO 
SUPPORT 
FULLY 
INTEROPERABLE 
ELEC-
TRONIC PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION 
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DE-
PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1635 of the National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
110–181; 122 Stat. 460; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note) is amend-
ed— 
(1) in subsection (h)(1) by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(C) A description and analysis of the level 
of interoperability and security of technologies
existing standards and assist in the develop-
ment of interoperability specifications; and 
‘‘(C) consistent with relevant guidance and 
directives for the development of information 
technology systems with the Department of De-
fense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
‘‘(2) ELEMENTS.—The guidelines and stand-
ards developed or adopted under subsection (a) 
shall— 
‘‘(A) promote the use by commercially 
available and open source products to incor-
porate those guidelines and standards; 
‘‘(B) develop uniform testing procedures 
suitable for determining the conformance of 
commercially available and other Federally de-
veloped healthcare information technology prod-
ucts with the guidelines and standards; 
‘‘(C) support and promote the testing of 
electronic healthcare information technologies 
utilized by the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs; 
‘‘(D) provide protection and security pro-
files;
‘‘(E) establish a core set of specifications 
in transactions between Federal agencies and 
their transaction partners; and 
‘‘(F) include validation criteria to enable 
Federal agencies to select healthcare informa-
tion technologies appropriate to their needs. 
‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than March 31, 2009, 
the Director shall submit to the Secretary of De-
fense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to 
the appropriate congressional committees, a report 
identifying the guidelines and standards developed 
or adopted under this subsection. The report shall 
include— 
‘‘(A) a description of how the Office is 
working with the Business Transformation 
Agency to integrate these standards into the 
Enterprise Transition Plan for the Department 
of Defense; and 
‘‘(B) a synchronization roadmap showing 
the timeline for the deployment of applicable ex-
isting and planned healthcare information tech-
nology systems and how they will implement 
these standards.’’. 
(b) 
COMPLIANCE
WITH
REQUIREMENTS.—The 
amendments made by subsection (a) shall not impede the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
and the interagency program office from ensuring that the 
requirements of subsection (d) of section 1635 of that Act, 
including the date specified in that subsection, are met. 
SEC. 234. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR TECHNOLOGY 
TRANSITION INITIATIVE. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 31, 
2009, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisi-
tion, Technology, and Logistics shall assess the fea-
sibility of consolidating various technology transition 
accounts into a unified effort managed by a senior 
official of the Department of Defense. 
(2) OSD PROGRAMS INCLUDED.—Such assess-
ment shall include, but shall not be limited to, the 
following programs within the Office of the Sec-
retary of Defense: Technology Transition Initiative, 
Foreign Comparative Test, Defense Acquisition 
Challenge Program, Quick Reaction Fund, Manufac-
turing Technology, Joint Capability Technology 
Demonstrations, Defense Technology Link, Joint 
Capability Technology Demonstration Transition 
Program, Defense Acquisition Executive, Rapid Re-
action Fund, and Operational Experimentation Divi-
sion.
(3) MILITARY
DEPARTMENT
PROGRAMS
IN-
CLUDED.—Such assessment shall also include, as 
appropriate, the technology transition initiatives of 
the military departments. 
(b) INITIATIVE REQUIREMENT REPEALED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2359a of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended— 
(A) by amending the section heading to 
read as follows: 
‘‘§ 2359a. Technology Transition Council’’; 
(B) by striking subsections (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), (f), and (h); and 
(C) by redesignating subsections (g) and 
(i) as (a) and (b), respectively. 
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of 
sections at the beginning of chapter 139 of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
relating to section 2359a and inserting the following 
new item: 
‘‘2359a. Technology Transition Council.’’. 
SEC. 235. TRUSTED DEFENSE SYSTEMS. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of De-
fense shall conduct a comprehensive assessment of covered 
acquisition programs to identify vulnerabilities in the sup-
ply chain of each program’s information processing sys-
tems that potentially compromise the level of trust in such 
systems. Such assessment shall also— 
(1) assess vulnerabilities at multiple levels of 
the information processing system, including but not 
limited to, microcircuits, software, and firmware; 
(2) prioritize the potential vulnerabilities and 
impacts of the various elements and stages of the 
system supply chain to identify the most effective 
balance of investments to minimize the effects of 
compromise; 
(3) provide recommendations regarding ways to 
improve trust in the supply chain for covered acqui-
sition programs; and 
(4) identify the appropriate lead, and sup-
porting elements, within the Department of Defense 
for the development of an integrated strategy for en-
suring trust in the supply chain for acquisition pro-
grams. 
(b) STRATEGY REQUIRED.—The lead identified pur-
suant to subsection (a)(4), in cooperation with the sup-
porting elements also identified by the Secretary of De-
fense, shall develop an integrated strategy for ensuring 
trust in the supply chain for acquisition programs. Such 
strategy shall—
(1) address the vulnerabilities identified by the 
Secretary’s assessment under subsection (a); 
(2) reflect the priorities identified by such as-
sessment; 
(3) be executable by the defense acquisition 
community; and 
(4) be sufficiently specific to provide guidance 
for the planning, programming, budgeting, and exe-
cution process in order to ensure acquisition pro-
grams have the necessary resources to implement all 
appropriate elements of the strategy. 
(c) INTERIM POLICY FOR APPLICATION SPECIFIC IN-
TEGRATED CIRCUITS.—Not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
shall issue a policy requiring covered trusted systems to 
employ only trusted foundry services to fabricate their cus-
tom designed integrated circuits. 
(d) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 12 
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional de-
fense committees— 
(1) the assessment required by subsection (a); 
and 
(2) the strategy required by subsection (b). 
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) The term ‘‘covered acquisition programs’’ 
means a Department of Defense acquisition program 
that is a major system for purposes of section 
2302(5) of title 10, United States Code, and— 
(A) has not yet entered low-rate initial pro-
duction, as defined in section 2400 of title 10, 
United States Code; or 
(B) is currently in production or no longer 
in production, and information processing sys-
tem upgrades are still planned over the life 
cycle of the system. 
(2) The terms ‘‘trust’’ and ‘‘trusted’’ refer to 
the high confidence by the Department of Defense 
in the national ability to secure national security 
systems by assessing the integrity of the people and 
processes used to design, generate, manufacture, 
and distribute national security critical components. 
(3) The term ‘‘covered trusted systems’’ 
means— 
(A) all Mission Assurance Category I sys-
tems, as defined in Department of Defense Di-
rective 8500.01E and associated Department of 
Defense Instruction 8500.2; and 
(B) any other system identified by the Sec-
retary of Defense as a system—
(i) that is vital to mission effective-
ness or operational readiness of deployed 
or contingency forces; 
(ii) the loss or degradation of which 
results in immediate and sustained loss of 
mission effectiveness; 
(iii) that is highly accurate and highly 
available; and 
(iv) for which the most stringent pro-
tection measures are required. 
(4) The term ‘‘trusted foundry services’’ means 
the program co-funded by the National Security 
Agency and the Department of Defense, through 
program element 0605140D8Z, or any such similar 
program approved by the Secretary of Defense. 
SEC. 236. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR EN-
HANCED AN/TPQ–36 RADAR SYSTEM PENDING 
SUBMISSION OF REPORT. 
Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to section 
201(1) of this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 
year 2009 for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
Army, for the Enhanced AN/TPQ–36 radar system, not 
more than 70 percent of the amounts remaining unobli-
gated as of the date of the enactment of this Act may 
be obligated until the Secretary of the Army submits to
the congressional defense committees a report describing 
the plan to transition the Counter-Rockets, Artillery, and 
Mortars program to a program of record. 
SEC. 237. CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT TO OUTLINE A 
JOINT APPROACH FOR FUTURE DEVELOP-
MENT OF VERTICAL LIFT AIRCRAFT AND 
ROTORCRAFT. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of De-
fense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall 
carry out a capabilities-based assessment that outlines a 
joint approach to the future development of vertical lift 
aircraft and rotorcraft for all of the military services. The 
assessment shall— 
(1) address critical technologies required for fu-
ture development, including a technology roadmap; 
(2) include the development of a strategic plan 
that— 
(A) formalizes the Department of De-
fense’s strategic vision for the next generation 
of Department of Defense vertical lift aircraft 
and rotorcraft; 
(B) establishes joint requirements for the 
next generation of Department of Defense 
vertical lift aircraft and rotorcraft technology; 
and
(C) emphasizes the development of com-
mon service requirements; and 
(3) include the development of a detailed 
science and technology investment and implementa-
tion plan and an identification of the resources re-
quired to implement it. 
(b) REPORT.—The Secretary and the Chairman shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
on the assessment under subsection (a). The report shall 
include— 
(1) the technology roadmap referred to in sub-
section (a)(1); 
(2) the strategic plan referred to in subsection 
(a)(2); 
(3) the plan and the identification of resources 
referred to in subsection (a)(3); and 
(4) a detailed plan to establish a Joint Vertical 
Lift Aircraft/Rotorcraft Office based on lessons 
learned from the Joint Advanced Strike Technology 
(JAST) Office. 
SEC. 238. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PROMPT GLOBAL 
STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act, funds for conventional prompt global 
strike capability development are authorized by this Act
only for those activities expressly delineated in the expend-
iture plan for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 that was re-
quired by section 243 of the National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 
Stat. 51; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) and submitted to the con-
gressional defense committees and dated March 24, 2008, 
or those activities otherwise expressly authorized by Con-
gress. 
(b) REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees, concurrently with 
the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2010, a re-
port that describes each conventional prompt global strike 
concept that— 
(1) has been, or will be, affected by the tech-
nology applications developed pursuant to conven-
tional prompt global strike activities within fiscal 
year 2009; and 
(2) will be considered within the context of any 
conventional prompt global strike concept decision in 
fiscal year 2010. 
SEC. 239. VISITING NIH SENIOR NEUROSCIENCE FELLOW-
SHIP PROGRAM. 
(a) REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH.—The Secretary 
of Defense may establish a program to be known as the 
Visiting NIH Senior Neuroscience Fellowship Program (in
this section referred to as the ‘‘Program’’) at the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the 
Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and 
Traumatic Brain Injury (DCoE). 
(b) ACTIVITIES OF THE PROGRAM.—The Program 
may— 
(1) provide a partnership between the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and DARPA that will 
enable identification and funding of the broadest 
range of innovative, highest quality clinical and ex-
perimental neuroscience studies for the benefit of 
men and women in the Armed Forces; 
(2) provide a partnership between the NIH and 
the DCoE that will enable identification and funding 
of clinical and experimental neuroscience studies for 
the benefit of men and women in the Armed Forces; 
(3) provide a technology transfer mechanism 
whereby the results of such studies can, where ap-
propriate, be used to enhance the health mission of 
the NIH for the benefit of the public; and 
(4) provide a military/civilian collaborative envi-
ronment for neuroscience-based medical problem- 
solving in critical areas impacting both military and 
civilian life, particularly post-traumatic stress dis-
order.
TITLE III—OPERATION AND 
MAINTENANCE 
Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 
Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding. 
Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions 
Sec. 311. Authorization for Department of Defense participation in conserva-
tion banking programs. 
Sec. 312. Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs 
in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 
Lake, Washington. 
Sec. 313. Expand cooperative agreement authority for management of natural 
resources to include off-installation mitigation. 
Sec. 314. Detection instrument technology research and deployment of resulting 
detection instruments and technological improvements. 
Sec. 315. Closed Loop Recycling for Motor Vehicle Lubricating Oil. 
Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues 
Sec. 321. Time limitation on duration of public-private competitions. 
Sec. 322. Comprehensive analysis and development of single Government-wide 
definition of inherently governmental function. 
Sec. 323. Study on future depot capability. 
Sec. 324. High-performing organization business process reengineering. 
Sec. 325. Temporary suspension of studies and public-private competitions re-
garding conversion of functions of the Department of Defense 
performed by civilian employees to contractor performance. 
Sec. 326. Consolidation of Air Force and Air National Guard aircraft mainte-
nance. 
Sec. 327. Guidance for performance of civilian personnel work under Air Force 
civilian personnel consolidation plan. 
Sec. 328. Report on reduction in number of firefighters on Air Force bases. 
Subtitle D—Energy Security 
Sec. 331. Annual report on operational energy management and implementa-
tion of operational energy strategy. 
Sec. 332. Consideration of fuel logistics support requirements in planning, re-
quirements development, and acquisition processes. 
Sec. 333. Study on solar energy for use at forward operating locations. 
Sec. 334. Study on coal-to-liquid fuels. 
Sec. 335. Exception to alternative fuel procurement requirement. 
Sec. 336. Study of Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Acquisition 
Processes. 
Subtitle E—Reports 
Sec. 341. Comptroller General report on readiness of Armed Forces. 
Sec. 342. Report on plan to enhance combat skills of Navy and Air Force per-
sonnel. 
Sec. 343. Comptroller General report on the use of the Army Reserve and Na-
tional Guard as an operational reserve.
Sec. 344. Comptroller General report on link between preparation and use of 
Army reserve component forces to support ongoing operations. 
Sec. 345. Comptroller General report on adequacy of funding, staffing, and or-
ganization of Department of Defense Military Munitions Re-
sponse Program. 
Sec. 346. Report on options for providing repair capabilities to support ships 
operating near Guam. 
Subtitle F—Other Matters 
Sec. 351. Extension of Enterprise Transition Plan reporting requirement. 
Sec. 352. Demilitarization of loaned, given, or exchanged documents, historical 
artifacts, and condemned or obsolete combat materiel. 
Sec. 353. Repeal of requirement that Secretary of Air Force provide training 
and support to other military departments for A–10 aircraft. 
Sec. 354. Display of annual budget requirements for Air Sovereignty Alert Mis-
sion. 
Sec. 355. Sense of Congress that Air Sovereignty Alert Mission should receive 
sufficient funding and resources. 
Sec. 356. Revision of certain Air Force regulations required. 
Sec. 357. Transfer of C–12 aircraft to California Department of Forestry and 
Fire Protection. 
Sec. 358. Availability of funds for Irregular Warfare Support program. 
Sec. 359. Sense of Congress regarding procurement and use of munitions. 
Sec. 360. Limitation on obligation of funds for Air Combat Command Manage-
ment Headquarters. 
Sec. 361. Increase of domestic sourcing of military working dogs used by the 
Department of Defense. 
Sec. 362. Funding for programs relating to dental readiness for the Army Re-
serve. 
Subtitle A—Authorization of 
Appropriations 
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING. 
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2009 for the use of the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for 
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and 
maintenance, in amounts as follows: 
(1) For the Army, $31,788,395,000. 
(2) For the Navy, $34,870,098,000. 
(3) For the Marine Corps, $5,680,054,000.
(4) For the Air Force, $35,060,427,000. 
(5) 
For 
Defense-wide 
activities, 
$25,806,657,000. 
(6) For the Army Reserve, $2,659,141,000. 
(7) For the Naval Reserve, $1,311,085,000. 
(8) 
For 
the 
Marine 
Corps 
Reserve, 
$213,131,000. 
(9) For the Air Force Reserve, $3,202,892,000. 
(10) 
For 
the 
Army 
National 
Guard, 
$5,900,346,000. 
(11) 
For 
the 
Air 
National 
Guard, 
$5,929,576,000. 
(12) For the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Armed Forces, $13,254,000. 
(13) For Environmental Restoration, Army, 
$447,776,000. 
(14) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, 
$290,819,000. 
(15) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force, 
$496,277,000. 
(16) For Environmental Restoration, Defense- 
wide, $13,175,000. 
(17) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly 
Used Defense Sites, $257,796,000.
(18) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and 
Civic Aid programs, $83,273,000. 
(19) For Cooperative Threat Reduction pro-
grams, $445,135,000. 
(20) For the Overseas Contingency Operations 
Transfer Fund, $9,101,000. 
Subtitle B—Environmental 
Provisions 
SEC. 311. AUTHORIZATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
PARTICIPATION IN CONSERVATION BANKING 
PROGRAMS. 
(a) PARTICIPATION AUTHORIZED.—Chapter 159 of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
section 2694b the following new section: 
‘‘§ 2694c. Participation in conservation banking pro-
grams 
‘‘(a) AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE.—Subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds to carry out this section, 
the Secretary concerned, when engaged or proposing to 
engage in an activity described in subsection (b) that may 
or will result in an adverse impact to one or more species 
protected (or pending protection) under any applicable 
provision of law, or habitat for such species, may make 
payments to a conservation banking program or ‘in-lieu- 
fee’ mitigation sponsor approved in accordance with—
‘‘(1) the Federal Guidance for the Establish-
ment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 
Fed. Reg. 58605; November 28, 1995); 
‘‘(2) the Guidance for the Establishment, Use, 
and Operation of Conservation Banks (68 Fed. Reg. 
24753; May 2, 2003); 
‘‘(3) the Federal Guidance on the Use of In- 
Lieu-Fee Arrangements for Compensatory Mitiga-
tion Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and 
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (65 Fed. 
Reg. 66915; November 7, 2000); or 
‘‘(4) any successor or related administrative 
guidance or regulation. 
‘‘(b) COVERED ACTIVITIES.—Payments to a con-
servation banking program or ‘in-lieu-fee’ mitigation spon-
sor under subsection (a) may be made only for the purpose 
of facilitating one or more of the following activities: 
‘‘(1) Military testing, operations, training, or 
other military activity. 
‘‘(2) Military construction. 
‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSERVATION 
BANKING.—Payments made under subsection (a) to a 
conservation banking program or ‘in-lieu-fee’ mitigation 
sponsor for the purpose of facilitating military construc-
tion may be treated as eligible costs of the military con-
struction project. 
‘‘(d) SECRETARY CONCERNED DEFINED.—In this 
section, the term ‘Secretary concerned’ means— 
‘‘(1) the Secretary of a military department; 
and 
‘‘(2) the Secretary of Defense with respect to a 
Defense Agency.’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 
at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2694b the following new 
item: 
‘‘2694c. Participation in conservation banking programs.’’. 
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 2694c of title 10, 
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take 
effect on October 1, 2008, and only funds appropriated 
for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2008, may 
be used to carry out such section. 
SEC. 312. REIMBURSEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
TION AGENCY FOR CERTAIN COSTS IN CON-
NECTION WITH MOSES LAKE WELLFIELD 
SUPERFUND 
SITE, 
MOSES 
LAKE, 
WASH-
INGTON. 
(a) AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE.— 
(1) TRANSFER
AMOUNT.—Using funds de-
scribed in subsection (b) and notwithstanding sec-
tion 2215 of title 10, United States Code, the Sec-
retary of Defense may transfer not more than 
$64,049.40 during fiscal year 2009 to the Moses 
Lake Wellfield Superfund Site 10–6J Special Ac-
count. 
(2) PURPOSE OF REIMBURSEMENT.—The pay-
ment under paragraph (1) is to reimburse the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency for its costs incurred 
in overseeing a remedial investigation/feasibility 
study performed by the Department of the Army 
under the Defense Environmental Restoration Pro-
gram at the former Larson Air Force Base, Moses 
Lake Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington. 
(3) INTERAGENCY
AGREEMENT.—The reim-
bursement described in paragraph (2) is provided for 
in the interagency agreement entered into by the 
Department of the Army and the Environmental 
Protection Agency for the Moses Lake Wellfield 
Superfund Site in March 1999. 
(b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Any payment under sub-
section (a) shall be made using funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by section 301(17) for operation and mainte-
nance for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used De-
fense Sites.
(c) USE OF FUNDS.—The Environmental Protection 
Agency shall use the amount transferred under subsection 
(a) to pay costs incurred by the Agency at the Moses Lake 
Wellfield Superfund Site. 
SEC. 313. EXPAND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AUTHORITY 
FOR MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 
TO 
INCLUDE 
OFF-INSTALLATION 
MITIGA-
TION. 
Section 103a(a) of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670c– 
1(a)) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘to provide for the’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘to provide for the following: 
‘‘(1) The’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph: 
‘‘(2) The maintenance and improvement of nat-
ural resources located off of a Department of De-
fense installation if the purpose of the cooperative 
agreement is to relieve or eliminate current or antici-
pated challenges that could restrict, impede, or oth-
erwise interfere with, whether directly or indirectly, 
current or anticipated military activities.’’.
SEC. 314. DETECTION INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGY RE-
SEARCH AND DEPLOYMENT OF RESULTING 
DETECTION 
INSTRUMENTS 
AND 
TECHNO-
LOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS. 
(a) RESEARCH REQUIRED.—The Secretary of De-
fense shall— 
(1) make the research, development, testing, 
and evaluation of technology related to unexploded 
ordnance detection a priority; and 
(2) accelerate the transition of promising detec-
tion instrument technology across the Department of 
Defense. 
(b) DEPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.—The Secretary 
shall facilitate the deployment of unexploded ordnance de-
tection instrument technology developed through research 
funded by the Department of Defense or developed by en-
tities other than the Department of Defense. The Sec-
retary may consider allocating a portion of the amount 
appropriated for such research and development activities 
to assist in the training of operators of unexploded ord-
nance detection instruments on the use of new detection 
instruments. 
(c) REPORT.—Not later than February 1, 2009, the 
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives a report describing and 
evaluating the following: 
(1) The amounts allocated for research, devel-
opment, test, and evaluation for unexploded ord-
nance detection technologies. 
(2) The amounts allocated for transition of new 
unexploded ordnance technologies. 
(3) Activities undertaken by the Department to 
transition such technologies and train operators on 
emerging detection instrument technologies. 
(4) Any impediments to the transition of new 
unexploded ordnance detection instrument tech-
nologies to regular operation in remediation pro-
grams. 
(5) The transfer of such technologies to private 
companies involved in the detection of unexploded 
ordnance. 
(6) Activities undertaken by the Department to 
raise public awareness regarding unexploded ord-
nance. 
(d) UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE DEFINED.—In this 
section, the term ‘‘unexploded ordnance’’ has the meaning 
given such term in section 101(e)(5) of title 10, United 
States Code.
SEC. 315. CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING FOR MOTOR VEHICLE 
LUBRICATING OIL. 
(a) STUDY AND EVALUATION.—Not later than 90 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report which 
reviews the Department of Defense’s policies concerning 
the sale and disposal of used motor vehicle lubricating oil, 
and shall include in the report an evaluation of the feasi-
bility and desirability of implementing policies to require 
closed loop recycling of used oil as a means of reducing 
total indirect energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. 
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To the extent that the eval-
uation included in the report submitted under subsection 
(a) indicates that closed loop recycling of used motor vehi-
cle lubricating oil can reduce total indirect energy usage 
and greenhouse gas emissions without significant increase 
in overall cost to the Department of Defense, the Sec-
retary shall implement policies to require closed loop recy-
cling of used oil whenever feasible. 
(c) DEFINITION.— For purposes of this section, the 
term ‘‘closed loop recycling’’ means the sale of used oil 
to entities that re-refine used oil into base oil and vehicle 
lubricants that meet Department of Defense and industry 
standards, and the purchase of re-refined oil produced 
through such re-refining process.
Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot 
Issues 
SEC. 321. TIME LIMITATION ON DURATION OF PUBLIC-PRI-
VATE COMPETITIONS. 
(a) TIME LIMITATION.—Section 2461(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph: 
‘‘(5)(A) The duration of a public-private competition 
conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A–76 or any other provision of law for any func-
tion of the Department of Defense performed by Depart-
ment of Defense civilian employees may not exceed a pe-
riod of 540 days, commencing on the date on which the 
preliminary planning for the public-private competition be-
gins through the date on which a performance decision 
is rendered with respect to the function. 
‘‘(B) The time period specified in subparagraph (A) 
for a public-private competition does not include any day 
during which the public-private competition is delayed by 
reason of a protest before the Government Accountability 
Office or the United States Court of Federal Claims un-
less the Secretary of Defense determines that the delay 
is caused by issues being raised during the appellate proc-
ess that were not previously raised during the competi-
tion.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (5) of section 
2461(a) of title 10, United States Code, as added by sub-
section (a), shall apply with respect to a public-private 
competition covered by such section that is being con-
ducted on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 322. COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT 
OF SINGLE GOVERNMENT-WIDE DEFINITION 
OF INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. 
(a) DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DEFI-
NITION OF INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.— 
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
in consultation with appropriate representatives of the 
Chief Acquisition Officers Council under section 16A of 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
414b) and the Chief Human Capital Council under section 
1401 of title 5, United States Code, shall— 
(1) review the definitions of the term ‘‘inher-
ently governmental function’’ described in subsection 
(b) to determine whether such definitions are suffi-
ciently focused to ensure that only officers or em-
ployees of the Federal Government or members of 
the Armed Forces perform inherently governmental 
functions or other critical functions necessary for the 
mission of a Federal department or agency;
(2) develop a single consistent definition for 
such term that would— 
(A) address any deficiencies in the existing 
definitions, as determined pursuant to para-
graph (1); 
(B) reasonably apply to all Federal depart-
ments and agencies; 
(C) ensure that the head of each such de-
partment or agency is able to identify each po-
sition within that department or agency that 
exercises an inherently governmental function 
and should only be performed by officers or em-
ployees of the Federal Government or members 
of the Armed Forces; and 
(D) allow the head of each such depart-
ment or agency to identify each position within 
that department or agency that, while the posi-
tion may not exercise an inherently govern-
mental function, nevertheless should only be 
performed by officers or employees of the Fed-
eral Government or members of the Armed 
Forces; 
(3) in addition to the actions described under 
paragraphs (1) and (2), provide criteria that would 
identify positions within Federal departments and
agencies that are to be performed by officers or em-
ployees of the Federal Government or members of 
the Armed Forces to ensure that the head of each 
Federal department or agency— 
(A) develops and maintains sufficient or-
ganic expertise and technical capability; 
(B) develops guidance to implement the 
definition of inherently governmental as de-
scribed in paragraph (2) in a manner that is 
consistent with agency missions and operational 
goals; and 
(C) develops guidance to manage internal 
decisions regarding staffing in an integrated 
manner to ensure officers or employees of the 
Federal Government or members of the Armed 
Forces are filling critical management roles by 
identifying— 
(i) functions, activities, or positions, 
or some combination thereof, or 
(ii) additional mechanisms; 
(4) in undertaking the actions described in 
paragraphs (1) and (2), take into account the final 
recommendations and related findings concerning 
performance of inherently governmental functions in 
the Final Report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel
established pursuant to section 1423 of the Services 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (title XIV of Public 
Law 108–136; 41 U.S.C. 405 note) and any other 
relevant reports or documents; and 
(5) solicit the views of the public regarding the 
matters identified in this section. 
(b) DEFINITIONS OF INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL 
FUNCTION.—The definitions of inherently governmental 
function described in this subsection are the definitions 
of such term that are contained in— 
(1) the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act 
of 1998 (Public Law 105–270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note); 
(2) section 2383 of title 10, United States 
Code; 
(3) Office of Management and Budget Circular 
A–76; 
(4) the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and 
(5) any other relevant Federal law or regula-
tion, as determined by the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget in consultation with the 
Chief Acquisition Officers Council and the Chief 
Human Capital Council. 
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than one year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation
with the Chief Acquisition Officers Council and the Chief 
Human Capital Council, shall submit to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Represent-
atives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Govern-
mental Affairs in the Senate, and the Committee on Over-
sight and Government Reform of the House of Represent-
atives a report on the actions taken by the Director under 
this section. Such report shall contain each of the fol-
lowing: 
(1) A description of the actions taken by the 
Director under this section to develop a single defini-
tion of inherently governmental function. 
(2) Such legislative recommendations as the Di-
rector determines are necessary to further the pur-
poses of this section. 
(3) A description of such steps as may be nec-
essary— 
(A) to ensure that the single definition de-
veloped under this section is consistently ap-
plied through all Federal regulations, circulars, 
policy letters, agency guidance, and other docu-
ments; 
(B) to repeal any existing Federal regula-
tions, circular, policy letters, agency guidance 
and other documents determined to be super-
seded by the definition developed under this 
section; and 
(C) to develop any necessary implementing 
guidance under this section for agency staffing 
and contracting decisions, along with appro-
priate milestones. 
(d) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 
submission of the report required by subsection (c), the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
issue regulations to implement actions taken under this 
section to develop a single definition of inherently govern-
mental function. 
SEC. 323. STUDY ON FUTURE DEPOT CAPABILITY. 
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—Not later than 30 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Defense shall enter into a contract with an independent 
research entity that is a not-for-profit entity or a federally- 
funded research and development center with appropriate 
expertise in logistics and logistics analytical capability to 
carry out a study on the capability and efficiency of the 
depots of the Department of Defense to provide the logis-
tics capabilities and capacity necessary for national de-
fense. 
(b) CONTENTS OF STUDY.—The study carried out 
under subsection (a) shall—
(1) be a quantitative analysis of the post-reset 
Department of Defense depot capability required to 
provide life cycle sustainment of military legacy sys-
tems and new systems and military equipment; 
(2) take into consideration direct input from 
the Secretary of Defense and the logistics and acqui-
sition leadership of the military departments, includ-
ing materiel support and depot commanders; 
(3) take into consideration input from regular 
and reserve components of the Armed Forces, both 
with respect to requirements for sustainment-level 
maintenance and the capability and capacity to per-
form depot-level maintenance and repair; 
(4) identify and address each type of activity 
carried out at depots, installation directorates of lo-
gistics, regional sustainment-level maintenance sites, 
reserve component maintenance capability sites, the-
ater equipment support centers, and Army field sup-
port brigade capabilities; 
(5) examine relevant guidance provided and 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretary of each of the military depart-
ments, including with respect to programming and 
budgeting; and
(H) capital investment strategies, including 
the implementation of section 2476 of title 10, 
United States Code. 
(2) Current and future maintenance environ-
ments, including— 
(A) performance-based logistics; 
(B) supply chain management; 
(C) condition-based maintenance; 
(D) reliability-based maintenance; 
(E) consolidation and centralization, in-
cluding— 
(i) regionalization; 
(ii) two-level maintenance; and 
(iii) forward-based depot capacity; 
(F) public-private partnerships; 
(G) private-sector depot capability and ca-
pacity; and 
(H) the impact of proprietary technical 
documentation. 
(d) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—The Secretary 
of Defense and the Secretaries of each of the military de-
partments shall make available to the entity carrying out 
the study under subsection (a) all necessary and relevant 
information to allow the entity to conduct the study in 
a quantitative and analytical manner.
100 
(e) REPORTS
TO COMMITTEES
ON ARMED SERV-
ICES.— 
(1) INTERIM REPORT.—The contract that the 
Secretary enters into under subsection (a) shall pro-
vide that not later than one year after the com-
mencement of the study conducted under this sec-
tion, the chief executive officer of the entity that 
carries out the study pursuant to the contract shall 
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives an interim re-
port on the study. 
(2) FINAL REPORT.—Such contract shall pro-
vide that not later than 22 months after the date on 
which the Secretary of Defense enters into the con-
tract under subsection (a), the chief executive officer 
of the entity that carries out the study pursuant to 
the contract shall submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives a final report on the study. The report 
shall include each of the following: 
(A) A description of the depot maintenance 
environment, as of the date of the conclusion of 
the study, and the anticipated future environ-
ment, together with the quantitative data used
101 
in conducting the assessment of such environ-
ments under the study. 
(B) Recommendations with respect to what 
would be required to maintain, in a post-reset 
environment, an efficient and enduring Depart-
ment of Defense depot capability necessary for 
national defense. 
(C) Recommendations with respect to any 
changes to any applicable law that would be ap-
propriate for a post-reset depot maintenance 
environment. 
(D) Recommendations with respect to the 
methodology of the Department of Defense for 
determining core logistics requirements, includ-
ing an assessment of risk. 
(E) Proposed business rules that would 
provide incentives for the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretaries of the military departments 
to keep Department of Defense depots efficient 
and cost effective, including the workload level 
required for efficiency. 
(F) A proposed strategy for enabling, re-
quiring, and monitoring the ability of the De-
partment of Defense depots to produce per-
formance-driven outcomes and meet materiel
102 
readiness goals with respect to availability, reli-
ability, total ownership cost, and repair cycle 
time. 
(G) Comments provided by the Secretary 
of Defense and the Secretaries of the military 
departments on the findings and recommenda-
tions of the study. 
(f) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—Not later 
than 90 days after the date on which the report under 
subsection (d) is submitted, the Comptroller General shall 
review the report and submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives an 
assessment of the feasibility of the recommendations and 
whether the findings are supported by the data and infor-
mation examined. 
(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) The term ‘‘depot-level maintenance and re-
pair’’ has the meaning given that term under section 
2460 of title 10, United States Code. 
(2) The term ‘‘reset’’ means actions taken to 
repair, enhance, or replace military equipment used 
in support of operations underway as of the date of 
the 
enactment 
of 
this 
Act 
and 
associated 
sustainment.
103 
(3) The term ‘‘military equipment’’ includes all 
weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehicles and mu-
nitions of the Department of Defense, and the com-
ponents of such items. 
SEC. 324. HIGH-PERFORMING ORGANIZATION BUSINESS 
PROCESS REENGINEERING. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 3 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 129c 
the following new section: 
‘‘§ 129d. High-performing organizations 
‘‘(a) GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH- 
PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS.—The Secretary of De-
fense shall develop guidelines for the establishment of a 
high-performing organization conducted through a busi-
ness process reengineering initiative. The guidelines shall 
ensure consideration and assessment of the following: 
‘‘(1) Number of employees to be affected by the 
initiative. 
‘‘(2) Resources needed to conduct the initiative. 
‘‘(3) Location where the initiative will be per-
formed, and the location of the affected employees if 
different from the initiative location. 
‘‘(4) Functions to be included in the initiative. 
‘‘(5) Timeline for implementation of the initia-
tive.
104 
‘‘(6) Estimated duration of the initiative if such 
initiative is deemed to be temporary. 
‘‘(b) RESTRICTION ON HIGH-PERFORMING ORGANI-
ZATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense, with respect to mat-
ters concerning the Defense Agencies, and the Secretary 
of a military department, may not begin implementation 
of a business process reengineering initiative to establish 
a high performing organization until— 
‘‘(1) the Secretary submits to Congress the no-
tification required by subsection (d); and 
‘‘(2) the requirements of paragraphs (2) and 
(3) of section 7106(b) of title 5 are complied with. 
‘‘(c) CERTAIN INITIATIVES PROHIBITED.—The Sec-
retary of Defense, or the Secretary of a military depart-
ment, may not implement a high-performing organization 
if— 
‘‘(1) it were to result in a change of the collec-
tive bargaining status of an employee in the Depart-
ment of Defense or in the representation status of 
a labor organization with exclusive representation 
status, as provided in section 7114 of title 5; or 
‘‘(2) any planned reductions in staffing are 
based on cost savings assumptions that are unre-
lated to the establishment of the high performing or-
ganization.
105 
‘‘(d) CONGRESSIONAL
NOTIFICATION.—Forty-five 
days before commencing a high-performing organization 
under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense or the Sec-
retary of the military department concerned shall submit 
to Congress a notification describing the assessment re-
quired by subsection (a). 
‘‘(e) ANNUAL EVALUATION.—The Secretary of De-
fense or the Secretary of the military department con-
cerned shall conduct annual performance reviews of the 
participating organizations or functions under the juris-
diction of the Secretary. The reviews shall be submitted 
to Congress. Each review shall evaluate the performance 
of the high performance organization in the following 
areas; 
‘‘(1) Costs, savings, and overall financial per-
formance of the organization. 
‘‘(2) Organic knowledge, skills or expertise. 
‘‘(3) Efficiency and effectiveness of key func-
tions or processes. 
‘‘(4) Efficiency and effectiveness of the overall 
organization. 
‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, 
‘‘(1) The term ‘high-performing organization’ 
means an organization whose performance exceeds
106 
that of comparable providers, whether public or pri-
vate. 
‘‘(2) The term ‘business process reengineering 
initiative’ means an approach to reinvent or consoli-
date functions whether they are inherently govern-
mental, military essential, or commercial activities, 
or a reorganization that is undertaken at the direc-
tion of the Office of Management and Budget.’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 
at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 129c the following new 
item: 
‘‘129d. High-performing organizations.’’. 
SEC. 325. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF STUDIES AND PUB-
LIC-PRIVATE 
COMPETITIONS 
REGARDING 
CONVERSION OF FUNCTIONS OF THE DE-
PARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERFORMED BY CI-
VILIAN EMPLOYEES TO CONTRACTOR PER-
FORMANCE. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) The turbulence caused by the efforts of the 
Department of Defense to increase the size of the 
Armed Forces, implement the decisions of the 2005 
round of base realignments and closures, and exe-
cute transformational initiatives, combined with the 
strain on the Armed Forces due to ongoing contin-
107 
gency operations, could impede sound decisions re-
garding the conversion to contractor performance of 
functions of the Department of Defense performed 
by civilian employees. 
(2) Public-private competitions may unneces-
sarily divert Department of Defense personnel and 
resources away from operational obligations. 
(3) The Secretary of Defense needs to ensure 
that readiness is fully supported. 
(b) SUSPENSION.—During the period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on Sep-
tember 30, 2011, no study or public-private competition 
regarding the conversion to contractor performance of any 
function of the Department of Defense performed by civil-
ian employees may be begun or announced pursuant to 
section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, or otherwise 
pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular 
A–76. 
SEC. 326. CONSOLIDATION OF AIR FORCE AND AIR NA-
TIONAL GUARD AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE. 
(a) ROLE OF NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.—The Sec-
retary of the Air Force shall not implement the consolida-
tion of aircraft repair facilities and personnel of the active 
Air Force with aircraft repair facilities and personnel of 
the Air National Guard or the consolidation of aircraft
108 
repair facilities and personnel of the Air National Guard 
with aircraft repair facilities and personnel of the active 
Air Force until the Secretary consults with, and obtains 
the consent of, the National Guard Bureau. 
(b) REPORT ON CRITERIA.—Not later than 30 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of the Air Force shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a re-
port stating all the criteria being used by the Department 
of the Air Force and the Rand Corporation to evaluate 
the feasibility of consolidating Air Force maintenance 
functions into organizations that would integrate active, 
Guard, and Reserve components into a total-force ap-
proach. The report shall include the assumptions that 
were provided to or developed by the Rand Corporation 
for their study of the feasibility of the consolidation pro-
posal. 
(c) REPORT ON FEASIBILITY STUDY.—At least 90 
days before any consolidation actions, the Secretary of the 
Air Force shall submit to the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
on the findings of the Rand Corporation feasibility study 
and the Rand Corporation’s recommendations, the Air 
Force’s assessment of the findings and recommendations, 
any plans developed for implementation of the consolida-
109 
tion, and a delineation of all infrastructure costs antici-
pated as a result of implementation. 
SEC. 327. GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN PER-
SONNEL WORK UNDER AIR FORCE CIVILIAN 
PERSONNEL CONSOLIDATION PLAN. 
(a) GUIDANCE FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MANAGE-
MENT CONSOLIDATION.—In determining which, if any, ci-
vilian personnel management functions may appropriately 
be consolidated under one command or in a central or re-
gional location, the Secretary of the Air Force shall be 
guided by the anticipated positive or negative impact upon 
the productivity of the managed workforces at different 
commands and the consequently anticipated positive or 
negative impact upon mission accomplishment at the dif-
ferent commands. This analysis shall be customized for 
each affected command, taking into account such factors 
as the size and complexity of the civilian workforce and 
the extent to which mission accomplishment is dependent 
upon the productivity of the civilian workforce. What func-
tions are deemed ‘‘transactional’’ or ‘‘nontransactional’’ 
may vary for each affected command. In general, more 
of the civilian personnel management functions for small-
er, less civilian dependent commands may be consolidated 
in a central or regional location or command while fewer
110 
functions may be consolidated from larger, more civilian 
dependent commands. 
(b) PROHIBITION ON CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN 
FUNCTIONS.—For the Large Civilian Centers, the Sec-
retary of the Air Force will not consolidate in a central 
or regional location or command at least the following 
functions: 
(1) Staffing positions filled through internal or 
external recruitment processes. 
(2) Development of position classifications or 
job descriptions. 
(3) Employee management relations, including 
performance management programs, conduct or dis-
cipline programs and labor management programs. 
(4) Labor force planning and management, in-
cluding internal pay pool management and employee 
performance reviews. 
(5) Managing workers compensation program 
pursuant to chapter 81 of title 5, United States 
Code, or relevant State workers’ compensation pro-
grams. 
(c) LARGE CIVILIAN CENTER DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, the term ‘‘Large Civilian Center’’ refers to installa-
tions or commands with operational missions primarily de-
pendent upon the productivity of civilian workforces typi-
111 
cally numbering in the thousands and engaged in program 
management, systems engineering, research or develop-
ment, logistics management, software management, man-
agement of existing aircraft systems, and depot level main-
tenance. Such an installation or command typically in-
cludes occupational series far in excess of those assigned 
to other, more typical, Air Force installations or com-
mands. 
SEC. 328. REPORT ON REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF FIRE-
FIGHTERS ON AIR FORCE BASES. 
In an effort to ensure the Air Force is meeting the 
minimum safety standards for staffing, equipment, and 
training as required by Department of Defense Installa-
tion and Environment Instruction 6055.6, the Secretary 
of the Air Force shall submit to Congress, not later than 
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a 
report on the effect of the reduction in fire fighters on 
Air Force bases as a result of PBD720. Such report shall 
include the following: 
(1) An evaluation of current fire fighting capa-
bility and whether the reduction has increased the 
risk of harm to either fire fighters or those they may 
serve in response to an emergency. 
(2) An evaluation on whether there is adequate 
capability within the surrounding municipal commu-