[House Report 112-78]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


   112th Congress 1st 
         Session        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
                                                        112-78
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 1540

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 17, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                      

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
112th Congress 
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                 112-78
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 1540

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 17, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia                CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana     MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida                  JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia               TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York               C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada                     KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois            BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
                  Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Purpose of the Legislation.......................................     1
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Position...............................................     5
Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     5
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     5
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill..............     6
Budget Authority Implication.....................................    17

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

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    21
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    21
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    21
      Overview...................................................    21
      Items of Special Interest..................................    21
        Aerial Common Sensor.....................................    21
        Airborne Reconnaissance Low..............................    21
        Air filters for National Guard helicopters...............    22
        CH-47F Chinook helicopter................................    22
        UH-72A Lakota helicopter aircraft survivability equipment    22
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    22
      Overview...................................................    22
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    23
      Overview...................................................    23
      Items of Special Interest..................................    23
        Abrams tank program National Guard modernization.........    23
        Bradley fighting vehicle program.........................    24
        M4 carbine product improvement program...................    24
        Stryker vehicles.........................................    25
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................    25
      Overview...................................................    25
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    25
      Overview...................................................    25
      Items of Special Interest..................................    25
        Body armor investment strategy...........................    25
        Body armor requirements generation and weight reduction 
          initiatives............................................    26
        Information management system for the National Guard.....    27
        Joint Tactical Radio System..............................    27
        Light tactical vehicle investment strategy...............    28
        M915 line haul tractor trailer acquisition strategy......    29
        Tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition strategy............    29
        Weapon light upgrades....................................    29
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................    30
      Overview...................................................    30
      Items of Special Interest..................................    30
        Efforts to mitigate the improvised explosive device 
          threat to dismounted operations........................    30
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization....    30
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    31
      Overview...................................................    31
      Items of Special Interest..................................    31
        V-22.....................................................    31
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    32
      Overview...................................................    32
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............    32
      Overview...................................................    32
      Items of Special Interest..................................    32
        Laser guided air-launched rockets........................    32
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    32
      Overview...................................................    32
      Items of Special Interest..................................    33
        Amphibious Assault Ship..................................    33
        Navy Shipbuilding Program................................    33
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    34
      Overview...................................................    34
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    34
      Overview...................................................    34
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    34
      Overview...................................................    34
      Items of Special Interest..................................    35
        B-1 bomber aircraft force structure......................    35
        Common vertical lift support platform....................    35
        Global Hawk..............................................    35
        Intra-theater and inter-theater airlift programs.........    36
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................    37
      Overview...................................................    37
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................    37
      Overview...................................................    37
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................    38
      Overview...................................................    38
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................    38
      Overview...................................................    38
      Items of Special Interest..................................    38
        Innovative titanium manufacturing processes..............    38
        Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal 
          Defense................................................    38
        Special operations combatant craft systems...............    39
        Special operations communications equipment and tactical 
          radio systems..........................................    39
        Standard missile-3 interceptors..........................    39
        Terminal High Altitude Area Defense......................    40
        Transition of non-lethal weapons.........................    41
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................    42
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    42
      Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations...............    42
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................    42
      Section 111--Limitation on Retirement of C-23 Aircraft.....    42
      Section 112--Limitation on Procurement of Stryker Combat 
        Vehicles.................................................    42
      Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Airframes 
        for Army UH-60M/HH-60M Helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S 
        Helicopters..............................................    42
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................    42
      Section 121--Multiyear Funding for Detail Design and 
        Construction of LHA Replacement Ship Designated LHA-7....    42
      Section 122--Multiyear Funding for Procurement of Arleigh 
        Burke-Class Destroyers...................................    43
      Section 123--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Mission 
        Avionics and Common Cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S 
        Helicopters..............................................    43
      Section 124--Separate Procurement Line Item for Certain 
        Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules.....................    43
      Section 125--Life-Cycle Cost-Benefit Analysis on 
        Alternative Maintenance and Sustainability Plans for the 
        Littoral Combat Ship Program.............................    43
      Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for F/A-18 
        Service Life Extension Program...........................    44
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    44
      Section 131--B-1 Bomber Force Structure....................    44
      Section 132--Procurement of Advanced Extremely High 
        Frequency Satellites.....................................    44
    Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters...................    45
      Section 141--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.    45
      Section 142--Contracts for Commercial Imaging Satellite 
        Capacities...............................................    45
      Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Acquisition of Joint Tactical Radio System...............    45
      Section 144--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program................    45
      Section 145--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Commercial Satellite Procurement.........................    46
      Section 146--Separate Procurement Line Item for Non-Lethal 
        Weapons Funding..........................................    46
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............    46
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    46
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............    46
      Overview...................................................    46
      Items of Special Interest..................................    46
        Active protection systems technology development.........    46
        Armed Deployable Helicopter..............................    47
        Army science and technology management...................    47
        Bioinformatics initiative................................    48
        Development of personnel protection equipment for female 
          soldiers...............................................    48
        Ground Combat Vehicle....................................    49
        Improved Turbine Engine Program..........................    50
        Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.............................    50
        Medium Extended Air Defense System.......................    51
        Nett Warrior.............................................    52
        Precision artillery munitions acquisition strategy.......    52
        Status of Future Combat Systems contract actions.........    53
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............    53
      Overview...................................................    53
      Items of Special Interest..................................    53
        Defense University Research Instrumentation Program......    53
        Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended 
          Range Munition.........................................    54
        Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of Alternatives.......    54
        Naval gunfire support....................................    54
        Navy remotely piloted demonstration and strike aircraft 
          programs...............................................    55
        Over-the-horizon vessel tracking.........................    56
        Study on LHD Class steam plants and propulsion systems...    56
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force.......    57
      Overview...................................................    57
      Items of Special Interest..................................    57
        Air Force advanced materials research....................    57
        Air Force missile field monitoring technology............    57
        Army and Air Force test, evaluation, range, and facility 
          support................................................    58
        Common propulsion technology development.................    58
        Deep Space Climate Observatory Launch Service............    59
        Electronic, Scheduling and Dissemination Upgrade.........    59
        F-35 aircraft............................................    60
        F-35 alternative ejection seat...........................    62
        Hosted payloads..........................................    63
        KC-46A aerial refueling aircraft program.................    63
        Lead-free electronic components..........................    64
        Military satellite communications technology development.    64
        Next generation long-range strike bomber program.........    65
        Operationally responsive space...........................    66
        Space-Based Infrared System..............................    66
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide....    67
      Overview...................................................    67
      Items of Special Interest..................................    67
        3-D advanced integrated circuit capabilities.............    67
        Airborne Infrared........................................    68
        Basic research international cooperation.................    68
        Capabilities to support humanitarian assistance and 
          disaster relief........................................    69
        Composite technology for use in missile defense 
          interceptors...........................................    69
        Conventional prompt global strike........................    69
        Cyber test and evaluation................................    70
        Defense laboratory survey................................    71
        Directed energy research.................................    71
        Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program..................    72
        Fabrication of micro-air vehicles........................    73
        Ground-based midcourse defense...........................    73
        High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System.............    75
        Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority 
          Serving Institutions...................................    75
        Industrial research and development activities...........    76
        Israeli cooperative missile defense......................    76
        Medical Countermeasures Initiative and the Chemical and 
          Biological Defense Program.............................    77
        Meeting airspace needs for defense-related Unmanned 
          Aerial Systems research................................    78
        Missile defense adjunct sensor capabilities..............    78
        Mitochondrial disease research...........................    78
        Mobile applications development..........................    78
        Multidisciplinary research in cyber-related fields.......    79
        Nanotechnology research..................................    79
        National Research and Education Center for Corrosion.....    80
        Phased, adaptive approach................................    80
        Precision Tracking Space System..........................    81
        Project Pelican..........................................    82
        Scientific and engineering fellowships...................    83
        Semiconductor development................................    83
        Social media tools for collaboration.....................    83
        Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor.................    84
        Study on possible establishment of a power and energy 
          University Affiliated Research Center..................    84
        Technology transition and insertion......................    85
        University Affiliated Research Centers...................    86
        Vertical lift consortium.................................    86
        Weaponization of rail-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems...    86
        Weapons of Mass Destruction defeat technologies and 
          capabilities...........................................    87
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................    87
      Overview...................................................    87
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................    87
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    87
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............    87
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................    88
      Section 211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the 
        Ground Combat Vehicle Program............................    88
      Section 212--Limitation on the Individual Carbine Program..    88
      Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ohio-
        class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program....    89
      Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Amphibious Assault Vehicles of the Marine Corps..........    90
      Section 215--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the 
        Propulsion System for the F-35 Lightning II Aircraft 
        Program..................................................    91
      Section 216--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Joint 
        Replacement Fuze Program.................................    91
      Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the 
        Joint Space Operations Center Management System..........    92
      Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Wireless Innovation Fund.................................    92
      Section 219--Advanced Rotorcraft Flight Research and 
        Development..............................................    92
      Section 220--Designation of Main Propulsion System of the 
        Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Bomber Aircraft as 
        Major Subprogram.........................................    92
      Section 221--Designation of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch 
        System Development and Procurement Program as Major 
        Subprogram...............................................    93
      Section 222--Prohibition on Delegation of Budgeting 
        Authority for Certain Research and Educational Programs..    93
      Section 223--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Future 
        Unmanned Carrier-based Strike System.....................    93
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................    93
      Section 231--Acquisition Accountability Reports on the 
        Ballistic Missile Defense System.........................    93
      Section 232--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Medium 
        Extended Air Defense System..............................    94
      Section 233--Homeland Defense Hedging Policy and Strategy..    95
      Section 234--Ground-based Midcourse Defense System.........    96
      Section 235--Study on Space-based Interceptor Technology...    96
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................    97
      Section 241--Annual Comptroller General Report on the KC-
        46A Aircraft Acquisition Program.........................    97
      Section 242--Independent Review and Assessment of 
        Cryptographic Modernization Program......................    97
      Section 243--Report on Feasibility of Electromagnetic Rail 
        Gun System...............................................    97
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................    97
      Section 251--Repeal of Requirement for Technology 
        Transition 
        Initiative...............................................    97
      Section 252--Preservation and Storage of Certain Property 
        Related to F136 Propulsion System........................    97
      Section 253--Extension of Authority for Mechanism to 
        Provide Funds for Defense Laboratories for Research and 
        Development of Technologies for Military Missions........    98
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................    98
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    98
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   100
    Budget Request Adjustments...................................   100
      Flight Simulator Training Hour Restoration.................   100
      Marine Corps Expeditionary Forward Operating Base..........   100
      Operational Energy Capability Improvement..................   101
      Strategic Environmental Research Program...................   101
    Energy Issues................................................   101
      Energy-Efficient Tires.....................................   101
      Navy Green Fleet Initiative Including Harbor Tugs..........   101
      Support of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
        Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs...........   101
    Logistics and Sustainment Issues.............................   102
      Aircraft Landing Gear Systems Sustainment..................   102
      Department-Wide Depot Workforce Development................   102
      Improved Corrosion Prevention and Control Practices........   102
      Increased Competition for the Operation and Sustainment of 
        Major Weapon Systems.....................................   103
      Laser Peening Technologies.................................   104
      Long-Term Corrosion Strategies of the Military Departments.   104
      Parts Supply Recapitalization..............................   105
      Study on Reducing Navy Small Boat Maintenance Costs........   105
      Sustainment Planning.......................................   106
    Readiness Issues.............................................   107
      Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Operational Considerations 
        and Force Structure......................................   107
      Army Unit Manning Effects on Readiness.....................   107
      Distribution and Use of Bottled Water in Contingency 
        Operations...............................................   108
      Federal Fire Protection....................................   109
      Installation Emergency Management Programs.................   109
      Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Instrument Landing System 
        Replacement..............................................   109
      Material Readiness of the Navy's Amphibious and Surface 
        Combatant Ships..........................................   110
      Modified Tables of Equipment...............................   111
      Naval Air Station North Island.............................   111
      Review of Department of Defense's Mix of Live and Simulated 

        Training.................................................   111
      Security Force Assistance..................................   112
      U.S. Army Full Spectrum Training Mile......................   112
    Other Matters................................................   113
      Air Force Environmental Cleanup............................   113
      Briefing on the Use of the Overseas Contingency Operations 
        Budget for Military Equipment Reset......................   113
      Department of Defense Personnel Security Clearance Program.   113
      Department of Defense Unexploded Ordnance Cleanup Report...   114
      Disposal of Surplus Property...............................   114
      Expedited Security Clearance Processing for Wounded 
        Warriors.................................................   115
      Federal Facility Agreement for Environmental Cleanup at 
        Tyndall Air Force Base...................................   116
      Joint Space Operations Center..............................   116
      Key Enabler Explosive Ordnance Disposal Requirements.......   116
      Satellite Operations Efficiencies..........................   117
      Wounded Warrior Service Dog Programs.......................   117
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   118
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   118
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   118
    Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions..............   118
      Section 311--Designation of Senior Official of Joint Chiefs 
        of Staff for Operational Energy Plans and Programs and 
        Operational Energy Budget Certification..................   118
      Section 312--Military Installation Implementation of Land 
        Management Plans and Sustainability Studies..............   118
      Section 313--Improved Sikes Act Coverage of State-Owned 
        Facilities Used for the National Defense.................   118
      Section 314--Discharge of Wastes at Sea Generated by 
        Vessels of the Armed Forces..............................   118
      Section 315--Designation of Department of Defense Executive 
        Agent for Alternative Fuel Development...................   118
      Section 316--Favorable Consideration of Energy-Efficient 
        Technologies in Contracts for Logistics Support of 
        Contingency Operations...................................   119
    Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................   119
      Section 321--Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and 
        Repair...................................................   119
      Section 322--Core Logistics Capabilities...................   119
      Section 323--Designation of Military Industrial Facilities 
        as Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence........   120
      Section 324--Redesignation of Core Competencies as Core 
        Logistics Capabilities for Centers of Industrial and 
        Technical Excellence.....................................   120
      Section 325--Permanent and Expanded Authority for Army 
        Industrial Facilities To Enter into Certain Cooperative 
        Arrangements with Non-Army Entities......................   121
      Section 326--Amendment to Requirement Relating to 
        Consideration of Competition Throughout Operation and 
        Sustainment of Major Weapon Systems......................   121
      Section 327--Implementation of Corrective Actions Resulting 
        from Corrosion Study of the F-22 and F-35 Aircraft.......   121
    Subtitle D--Readiness........................................   121
      Section 331--Modification of Department of Defense 
        Authority To Accept Voluntary Contributions of Funds.....   121
      Section 332--Review of Proposed Structures Affecting 
        Navigable Airspace.......................................   122
      Section 333--Sense of Congress Regarding Integration of 
        Ballistic Missile Defense Training Across and Between 
        Combatant Commands and Military Services.................   122
    Subtitle E--Reports..........................................   122
      Section 341--Annual Certification and Modifications of 
        Annual Report on Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment....   122
      Section 342--Modification of Report on Maintenance and 
        Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards...................   122
      Section 343--Additional Requirements for Annual Report on 
        Military Working Dogs....................................   122
      Section 344--Assessment and Reporting Requirements 
        Regarding the Status of Compliance with Joint Military 
        Training and Force 
        Allocations..............................................   123
      Section 345--Study of United States Pacific Command 
        Training Readiness.......................................   123
    Subtitle F--Limitations and Extensions of Authority..........   123
      Section 351--Adoption of Military Working Dog by Family of 
        Deceased or Seriously Wounded Member of the Armed Forces 
        Who Was the Dog's Handler................................   123
      Section 352--Prohibition on Expansion of the Air Force Food 
        Transformation Initiative................................   123
      Section 353--Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure of 
        Funds for the Migration of Army Enterprise Email Services   124
      Section 354--One-Year Extension of Pilot Program for 
        Availability of Working-Capital Funds to Army for Certain 
        Product Improvements.....................................   124
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   124
      Section 361--Consideration of Foreclosure Circumstances in 
        Adjudication of Security Clearances......................   124
      Section 362--Authority To Provide Information for Maritime 
        Safety of Forces and Hydrographic Support................   124
      Section 363--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds under Reciprocal 
        Fire Protection Agreements...............................   125
      Section 364--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To 
        Be Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Printing 
        and Reproduction.........................................   125
      Section 365--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To 
        Be Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Studies, 
        Analysis and Evaluations.................................   125
      Section 366--Clarification of the Airlift Service 
        Definitions Relative to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet......   125
      Section 367--Ratemaking Procedures for Civil Reserve Air 
        Fleet Contracts..........................................   126
      Section 368--Sense of Congress on Proposed Federal Aviation 
        Administration Changes to Flight Crew Member Duty and 
        Rest Requirements........................................   126
      Section 369--Policy on Active Shooter Training for Certain 
        Law Enforcement Personnel................................   126
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   126
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   126
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   128
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   128
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   128
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 
        Minimum Levels...........................................   128
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   128
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   128
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserves..................................   129
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   129
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2012 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   129
      Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 
        To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support.............   130
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   130
      Section 421--Military Personnel............................   130
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   130
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   130
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   131
      Community College of the Air Force.........................   131
      Critical Language Training at Reserve Officer Training 
        Programs and Senior Military Colleges....................   131
      Expanding the Use of On-Line Education in the Department of 
        Defense Educational Activity.............................   132
      Review for Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients......   132
      Use of Electronic Media for Family Support Programs........   132
      Wounded Warrior Implementation.............................   133
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   133
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally...............   133
      Section 501--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Marine 
        Corps Officers on Active Duty in Grades of Major, 
        Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel..........................   133
      Section 502--General Officer and Flag Officer Reform.......   133
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   134
      Section 511--Leadership of National Guard Bureau...........   134
      Section 512--Preseparation Counseling for Members of the 
        Reserve Components.......................................   135
      Section 513--Clarification of Applicability of Authority 
        for Deferral of Mandatory Separation of Military 
        Technicians (Dual Status) until Age 60...................   135
      Section 514--Modification of Eligibility for Consideration 
        for Promotion for Reserve Officers Employed as Military 
        Technicians (Dual Status)................................   135
    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   135
      Section 521--Findings regarding Unique Nature, Demands, and 
        Hardships of Military Service............................   135
      Section 522--Policy Addressing Dwell Time and Measurement 
        and Data Collection regarding Unit Operating Tempo and 
        Personnel Tempo..........................................   136
      Section 523--Authorized Leave Available for Members of the 
        Armed Forces Upon Birth or Adoption of a Child...........   136
      Section 524--Extension of Authority To Conduct Programs on 
        Career Flexibility To Enhance Retention of Members of the 
        Armed Forces.............................................   136
      Section 525--Policy on Military Recruitment and Enlistment 
        of Graduates of Secondary Schools........................   136
      Section 526--Navy Recruiting and Advertising...............   137
    Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters...............   137
      Section 531--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military 
        Personnel Decisions Relating To Correction of Military 
        Records..................................................   137
      Section 532--Clarification of Application and Extent of 
        Direct Acceptance of Gifts Authority.....................   137
      Section 533--Additional Condition on Repeal of Don't Ask, 
        Don't Tell Policy........................................   138
      Section 534--Military Regulations Regarding Marriage.......   138
      Section 535--Use of Military Installations as Site for 
        Marriage Ceremonies and Participation of Chaplains and 
        Other Military and Civilian Personnel in Their Official 
        Capacity.................................................   138
    Subtitle E--Member Education and Training Opportunities and 
        Administration...........................................   138
      Section 541--Improved Access to Apprenticeship Programs for 
        Members of the Armed Forces Who Are Being Separated from 
        Active Duty or Retired...................................   138
      Section 542--Expansion of Reserve Health Professionals 
        Stipend Program To Include Students in Mental Health 
        Degree Programs in Critical Wartime Specialties..........   138
      Section 543--Administration of United States Air Force 
        Institute of Technology..................................   139
      Section 544--Appointments to Military Service Academies 
        from Nominations Made by the Governor of Puerto Rico.....   139
      Section 545--Temporary Authority To Wave Maximum Age 
        Limitation on Admission to United States Military 
        Academy, United States Naval Academy, and United States 
        Air Force Academy........................................   139
      Section 546--Education and Employment Advocacy Program for 
        Wounded Members of the Armed Forces......................   139
    Subtitle F--Army National Military Cemeteries................   140
      Section 551--Army National Military Cemeteries.............   140
      Section 552--Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
        Inspection of Military Cemeteries........................   140
    Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home.....................   141
      Section 561--Control and Administration by Secretary of 
        Defense..................................................   141
      Section 562--Senior Medical Advisor Oversight of Health 
        Care Provided to Residents of Armed Forces Retirement 
        Home.....................................................   141
      Section 563--Establishment of the Armed Forces Retirement 
        Home Advisory Council and Resident Advisory Committees...   141
      Section 564--Administrators, Ombudsmen, and Staff of 
        Facilities...............................................   142
      Section 565--Revision of Fee Requirements..................   142
      Section 566--Revision of Inspection Requirements...........   142
      Section 567--Repeal of Obsolete Transitional Provisions and 
        Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Amendments...........   142
    Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness Matters................   142
      Section 571--Revision to Membership of Department of 
        Defense Military Family Readiness Council................   142
      Section 572--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local 
        Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members 
        of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees................................................   143
      Section 573--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for 
        Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces..............   143
      Section 574--Center for Military Family and Community 
        Outreach.................................................   143
      Section 575--Mental Health Support for Military Personnel 
        and Families.............................................   143
      Section 576--Report on Department of Defense Autism Pilot 
        Projects.................................................   143
    Subtitle I--Improved Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
        in the Armed Forces......................................   144
      Section 581--Director of Sexual Assault Prevention and 
        Response Office..........................................   144
      Section 582--Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and 
        Sexual Assault Victim Advocates..........................   144
      Section 583--Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel 
        and Services of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and 
        Sexual Assault Victim Advocates..........................   144
      Section 584--Privilege in Cases Arising Under Uniform Code 
        of Military Justice Against Disclosure of Communications 
        Between Sexual Assault Victims and Sexual Assault 
        Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates and Certain Other 
        Persons..................................................   144
      Section 585--Maintenance of Records Prepared in Connection 
        with Sexual Assaults Involving Members of the Armed 
        Forces or Dependents of Members..........................   145
      Section 586--Expedited Consideration and Priority for 
        Application for Consideration of a Permanent Change of 
        Station or Unit Transfer Based on Humanitarian Conditions 
        for Victim of Sexual Assault.............................   145
      Section 587--Training and Education Programs for Sexual 
        Assault Prevention and Response Program..................   145
    Subtitle J--Other Matters....................................   145
      Section 591--Limitations on Authority To Provide Support 
        and Services for Certain Organizations and Activities 
        Outside Department of Defense............................   145
      Section 592--Display of State, District of Columbia, and 
        Territorial Flags by Armed Forces........................   145
      Section 593--Military Adaptive Sports Program..............   146
      Section 594--Wounded Warrior Careers Program...............   146
      Section 595--Comptroller General Study of Military 
        Necessity of Selective Service System and Alternatives...   146
      Section 596--Sense of Congress Regarding Playing of Bugle 
        Call Commonly Known as ``Taps'' at Military Funerals, 
        Memorial Services and Wreath Laying Ceremonies...........   146
      Section 597--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Yellow 
        Ribbon Day...............................................   146
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   147
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   147
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   147
      Commissary and Exchange Privileges for Non-Department of 
        Defense Federal Employees Overseas.......................   147
      Consolidation of Disability Evaluation System..............   147
      Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act.............   148
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   149
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   149
      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2012 Increase in Military Basic 
        Pay......................................................   149
      Section 602--Resumption of Authority To Provide Temporary 
        Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing under 
        Certain Circumstances....................................   149
      Section 603--Lodging Accommodations for Members Assigned to 
        Duty in Connection with Commissioning or Fitting Out of a 
        Ship.....................................................   149
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   149
      Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces...............   149
      Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals....   149
      Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 
        Authorities for Nuclear Officers.........................   150
      Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and 
        Bonus Authorities........................................   150
      Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays.......   150
      Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Payment of Referral Bonuses..............................   150
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Generally...   150
      Section 621--One-Year Extension of Authority To Reimburse 
        Travel Expenses for Inactive-Duty Training outside of 
        Normal Commuting Distance................................   150
      Section 622--Mandatory Provision of Travel and 
        Transportation Allowances for Non-Medical Attendants for 
        Seriously Ill and Wounded Members of the Armed Forces....   151
    Subtitle D--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and 
        Transportation 
        Authorities..............................................   151
      Section 631--Purpose.......................................   151
      Section 632--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and 
        Transportation Authorities of the Uniformed Services.....   151
      Section 633--Old-Law Travel and Transportation Authorities 
        Transition Expiration Date and Transfer of Current 
        Sections.................................................   151
      Section 634--Addition of Sunset Provision to Old-Law Travel 
        and Transportation Authorities...........................   151
      Section 635--Technical and Clerical Amendments.............   152
      Section 636--Transition Provisions.........................   152
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentality Benefits and Operations..................   152
      Section 641--Expansion of Use of Uniform Funding Authority 
        To Include Permanent Change of Station and Temporary Duty 
        Lodging Programs Operated through Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentalities........................................   152
      Section 642--Contracting Authority for Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentalities To Provide and Obtain Goods and 
        Services.................................................   152
      Section 643--Designation of Fisher House for the Families 
        of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force 
        Base as a Fisher House...................................   153
      Section 644--Discretion of the Secretary of the Navy To 
        Select Categories of Merchandise To Be Sold by Ship 
        Stores Afloat............................................   153
      Section 645--Access of Military Exchange Stores System to 
        Credit Available Through Federal Financing Bank..........   153
      Section 646--Enhanced Commissary Stores Pilot Program......   153
    Subtitle F--Disability, Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits....   153
      Section 651--Monthly Amount and Duration of Special 
        Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Widows and Widowers of 
        Deceased Members of the Armed Forces Affected by Required 
        Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and 
        Indemnity Compensation...................................   153
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   154
      Section 661--Reimbursement of American National Red Cross 
        for Humanitarian Support and Other Services Provided to 
        Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents.........   154
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   154
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   154
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   155
      Automated Patient Management System for Air Evacuation.....   155
      Clarification on Competition for Medical Research 
        Consultation and Education...............................   156
      Clinical Social Workers....................................   156
      Cost Share for Acute Care Prescriptions under the TRICARE 
        Pharmacy Program.........................................   156
      Expansion of Spinal Cord Injury Research Program...........   157
      Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury...................   157
      Orthopedic Research for Extremity Injury...................   157
      Physical Rehabilitation of Wounded Warriors................   158
      Recommendations for Cost Savings Under the TRICARE Pharmacy 

        Program..................................................   158
      Use of Simulation Technology in Medical Training...........   158
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   159
    Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits..................   159
      Section 701--Annual Enrollment Fees for Certain Retirees 
        and 
        Dependents...............................................   159
      Section 702--Provision of Food to Certain Members and 
        Dependents Not Receiving Inpatient Care in Military 
        Medical Treatment 
        Facilities...............................................   159
      Section 703--Behavioral Health Support for Members of the 
        Reserve Components of the Armed Forces...................   160
      Section 704--Transition Enrollment of Uniformed Services 
        Family Health Plan Medicare-Eligible Retirees to TRICARE 
        for Life.................................................   160
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   160
      Section 711--Unified Medical Command.......................   160
      Section 712--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the 
        Future Electronic Health Records Program.................   160
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   160
      Section 721--Review of Women-Specific Health Services and 
        Treatment for Female Members of the Armed Forces.........   160
      Section 722--Comptroller General Reviews of Department of 
        Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
        Demonstration Project....................................   161
      Section 723--Comptroller General Report on Contracted 
        Health Care Staffing for Military Medical Treatment 
        Facilities...............................................   161
      Section 724--Treatment of Wounded Warriors.................   161
      Section 725--Cooperative Health Care Agreements............   161
      Section 726--Prostate Cancer Imaging Research Initiative...   161
      Section 727--Defense Centers of Excellence for 
        Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury..........   161
      Section 728--Collaborative Military-Civilian Trauma 
        Training 
        Programs.................................................   161
      Section 729--Traumatic Brain Injury........................   161
      Section 730--Competitive Programs for Alcohol and Substance 
        Abuse Disorders..........................................   162
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   162
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   162
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   162
      Acquisition Involving Federal Prison Industries............   162
      Aircraft Specialty Metal Content...........................   162
      Army Contract Bundling.....................................   163
      Beryllium Stockpile Modernization..........................   163
      Common Database for Tracking Contracts and Contractor 
        Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan........................   164
      Competition in Construction Acquisition Programs...........   165
      Cost Escalators in Major Weapons Systems Life Cycle Cost 
        Estimations..............................................   166
      Defense Contract Audit Agency Improvements.................   166
      Nunn-McCurdy Breach due to a Quantity Reduction............   167
      Pilot Programs for Rapid Acquisition of Information 
        Technology...............................................   168
      Small Business Subcontracting Goals........................   168
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   169
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   169
      Section 801--Requirements Relating to Core Logistics 
        Capabilities for Milestone A and Milestone B and 
        Elimination of References to Key Decision Points A and B.   169
      Section 802--Revision to Law Relating to Disclosures to 
        Litigation Support Contractors...........................   169
      Section 803--Extension of Applicability of the Senior 
        Executive Benchmark Compensation Amount for Purposes of 
        Allowable Cost Limitations under Defense Contracts.......   170
      Section 804--Supplier Risk Management......................   170
      Section 805--Extension of Availability of Funds in the 
        Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund...........   170
      Section 806--Defense Contract Audit Agency Annual Report...   171
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
        Procedures, and Limitations..............................   171
      Section 811--Calculation of Time Period Relating to Report 
        on Critical Changes in Major Automated Information 
        Systems..................................................   171
      Section 812--Change in Deadline for Submission of Selected 
        Acquisition Reports from 60 to 45 days...................   171
      Section 813--Extension of Sunset Date for Certain Protests 
        of Task and Deliver Order Contracts......................   171
      Section 814--Clarification of Department of Defense 
        Authority To Purchase Right-Hand Drive Passenger Sedans..   172
      Section 815--Amendment Relating to Buying Tents, 
        Tarpaulins, or Covers from American Sources..............   172
      Section 816--Para-Aramid Fibers and Yarns..................   172
      Section 817--Repeal of Sunset of Authority to Procure Fire 
        Resistant Rayon Fiber from Foreign Sources for the 
        Production of Uniforms...................................   172
    Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of 
        Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan............   172
      Section 821--Restrictions on Awarding Contracts in Support 
        of Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan to 
        Adverse Entities.........................................   172
      Section 822--Authority To Use Higher Thresholds for 
        Procurements in Support of Contingency Operations........   173
      Section 823--Authority To Examine Records of Foreign 
        Contractors Performing Contracts in Support of 
        Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan............   173
      Section 824--Definitions...................................   173
    Subtitle D--Defense Industrial Base Matters..................   173
      Section 831--Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base 
        Pilot Program............................................   173
      Section 832--Department of Defense Assessment of Industrial 
        Base for Potential Shortfalls............................   173
      Section 833--Comptroller General Assessment of Government 
        Competition in the Department of Defense Industrial Base.   174
      Section 834--Report on Impact of Foreign Boycotts on the 
        Defense Industrial Base..................................   174
      Section 835--Rare Earth Material Inventory Plan............   174
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   175
      Section 841--Miscellaneous Amendments to Public Law 111-383 
        Relating to Acquisition..................................   175
      Section 842--Procurement of Photovoltaic Devices...........   175
      Section 843--Clarification of Jurisdiction of the United 
        States District Courts To Hear Bid Protest Disputes 
        Involving Maritime Contracts.............................   175
      Section 844--Exemption of Department of Defense from 
        Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement.................   175
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   176
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   176
      Conduct of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review.......   176
      Influence of Budget on Quadrennial Defense Review..........   176
      Information Operations and Strategic Communications........   177
      Management of Information Technology.......................   177
      NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence........   178
      Office of Cyberthreat Analysis.............................   178
      Protection of Sensitive Information........................   179
      Report on Contractors at the Defense Intelligence Agency...   179
      Report on Increasing Competition for Space Launch..........   179
      Research and Development Assessments in Quadrennial Defense 
        Review and the Responsibilities of the Chairman of the 
        Joint Chiefs of Staff....................................   180
      Total Force Management.....................................   180
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   182
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   182
      Section 901--Revision of Defense Business System 
        Requirements.............................................   182
      Section 902--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as 
        the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps..............   182
    Subtitle B--Space Activities.................................   182
      Section 911--Notification Requirement for Harmful 
        Interference to Department of Defense Global Positioning 
        System...................................................   182
    Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters.....................   184
      Section 921--Report on Implementation of Recommendations by 
        Comptroller General on Intelligence Information Sharing..   184
      Section 922--Insider Threat Detection......................   184
    Subtitle D--Total Force Management...........................   185
      Section 931--General Policy for Total Force Management.....   185
      Section 932--Revisions to Department of Defense Civilian 
        Personnel Management Constraints.........................   186
      Section 933--Additional Amendments Relating to Total Force 
        Management...............................................   186
      Section 934--Amendments to Annual Defense Manpower 
        Requirements Report......................................   186
      Section 935--Revisions to Strategic Workforce Plan.........   187
      Section 936--Technical Amendments to Requirement for 
        Inventory of Contracts for Services......................   187
      Section 937--Modification of Temporary Suspension of 
        Public-Private Competitions for Conversion of Department 
        of Defense Functions to Contractor Performance...........   187
      Section 938--Preliminary Planning for Department of Defense 
        Public-Private Competitions..............................   188
      Section 939--Conversion of Certain Functions from 
        Contractor Performance to Performance by Department of 
        Defense Civilian Employees...............................   188
      Section 940--Assessment of Appropriate Department of 
        Defense and Contractor Personnel for the Defense Medical 
        Readiness Training Institute.............................   189
    Subtitle E--Quadrennial Roles and Missions and Related 
      Matters....................................................   189
      Section 951--Transfer of Provisions Relating to Quadrennial 
        Roles and Missions Review................................   189
      Section 952--Revisions to Quadrennial Roles and Missions 
        Review...................................................   189
      Section 953--Amendment to Presentation of Future-Years 
        Budget and Comptroller General Report on Budget 
        Justification Material...................................   189
      Section 954--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
        Assessment of Contingency Plans..........................   190
      Section 955--Quadrennial Defense Review....................   190
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   190
      Section 961--Deadline Revision for Report on Foreign 
        Language Proficiency.....................................   190
      Section 962--Military Activities in Cyberspace.............   191
      Section 963--Activities to Improve Multilateral, Bilateral, 
        and Regional Cooperation regarding Cybersecurity.........   191
      Section 964--Report on U.S. Special Operations Command 
        Structure................................................   191
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   192
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   192
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   192
    Interagency Coordination.....................................   192
      Whole-of-Government Approaches and the National Security 
        Strategy.................................................   192
    Other Matters................................................   193
      Analysis of Nuclear Force Structure Alternatives...........   193
      Annual Report on Missile Proliferation.....................   193
      Audit Readiness of the Department of Defense...............   194
      Comptroller General Review of Security Requirements for 
        Special Nuclear Material.................................   195
      Countering Adversarial Narratives..........................   195
      Countering Network-Based Threats...........................   196
      Counterproliferation Improvements and Efficiencies.........   197
      Cyber Activity of the People's Republic of China...........   198
      Cyber Threats to Critical Infrastructure...................   199
      Economic Warfare...........................................   199
      Evaluation of the Alternative Methods for Titanium 
        Production...............................................   200
      Global Posture Review Report...............................   200
      Government Accountability Office Assessment of Reporting 
        Cost Data Collection.....................................   200
      Management and Security of Nuclear Weapons.................   201
      Nuclear Command, Control and Communications................   201
      Planning for Electromagnetic Pulse Events..................   202
      Reduction in Reporting Requirements........................   203
      Secure Telecommuting Centers...............................   203
      Special Operations Aviation and Rotary Wing Support........   204
      State Partnership Program..................................   204
      The Role of Military Information Support Operations........   205
      U.S. Special Operations Command Undersea Mobility Strategy.   206
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   207
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   207
      Section 1001--General Transfer Authority...................   207
      Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act................   207
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   207
      Section 1011--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces 
        to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting 
        Counterterrorism Activities..............................   207
      Section 1012--Extension of Authority of Department of 
        Defense To Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug 
        Activities of Other Governmental Agencies................   207
      Section 1013--One-Year Extension of Authority To Provide 
        Additional Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain 
        Foreign Governments......................................   207
      Section 1014--Extension of Authority To Support Unified 
        Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia...   207
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   208
      Section 1021--Budgeting for Construction of Naval Vessels..   208
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   208
      Section 1031--Definition of Individual Detained at 
        Guantanamo...............................................   208
      Section 1032--Extension of Authority for Making Rewards for 
        Combating Terrorism......................................   208
      Section 1033--Clarification of Right To Plead Guilty in 
        Trial of Capital Offense by Military Commission..........   208
      Section 1034--Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, 
        the Taliban, and Associated Forces.......................   209
      Section 1035--Requirement for National Security Protocols 
        Governing Detainee Communications........................   209
      Section 1036--Process for the Review of Necessity for 
        Continued Detention of Individuals Detained at Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............................   209
      Section 1037--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or 
        Modify Facilities in the United States To House Detainees 
        Transferred from Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.....   210
      Section 1038--Prohibition on Family Member Visitation of 
        Individuals Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
        Cuba.....................................................   210
      Section 1039--Prohibition on the Transfer or Release of 
        Certain Detainees to or within the United States.........   210
      Section 1040--Prohibitions Relating to the Transfer or 
        Release of Certain Detainees to or within Foreign 
        Countries................................................   210
      Section 1041--Counterterrorism Operational Briefing 
        Requirement..............................................   211
      Section 1042--Requirement for Department of Justice 
        Consultation Regarding Prosecution of Terrorists.........   211
    Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces...................................   212
      Section 1051--Annual Assessment and Report on the Delivery 
        Platforms for Nuclear Weapons and the Nuclear Command and 
        Control System...........................................   212
      Section 1052--Plan on Implementation of the New START 
        Treaty...................................................   212
      Section 1053--Annual Report on the Plan for the 
        Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear 
        Weapons Complex, and Delivery Platforms..................   213
      Section 1054--Sense of Congress on Nuclear Force Reductions   213
      Section 1055--Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions.......   213
      Section 1056--Nuclear Employment Strategy..................   214
      Section 1057--Comptroller General Report on Nuclear Weapon 
        Capabilities and Force Structure Requirements............   214
    Subtitle F--Financial Management.............................   215
      Section 1061--Amendments Relating to Financial Management 
        Workforce................................................   215
      Section 1062--Reliability of Department of Defense 
        Financial Statements.....................................   215
      Section 1063--Financial Management Personnel Competency 
        Assessment...............................................   215
      Section 1064--Tracking Implementation of Department of 
        Defense Efficiencies.....................................   216
      Section 1065--Business Case Analysis for Department of 
        Defense Efficiencies.....................................   216
      Section 1066--Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness 
        Plan.....................................................   217
      Section 1067--Corrective Action Plan Relating to Execution 
        of Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan........   217
    Subtitle G--Studies and Reports..............................   217
      Section 1071--Repeal of Certain Report Requirements........   217
      Section 1072--Biennial Review of Required Reports..........   217
      Section 1073--Transmission of Reports in Electronic Format.   218
      Section 1074--Modifications to Annual Aircraft Procurement 
        Plan.....................................................   218
      Section 1075--Change of Deadline for Annual Report to 
        Congress on National Guard and Reserve Component 
        Equipment................................................   218
      Section 1076--Report on Homeland Defense Activities........   218
      Section 1077--Report on Nuclear Aspirations of Non-State 
        Entities, Nuclear Weapons, and Related Programs in Non-
        Nuclear Weapons States and Countries Not Parties to the 
        Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Certain Foreign 
        Persons..................................................   218
    Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   219
      Section 1081--Exemption from Freedom of Information Act for 
        Data Files of the Military Flight Operations Quality 
        Assurance Systems of the Military Departments............   219
      Section 1082--Limitation on Procurement and Fielding of 
        Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft...............   219
      Section 1083--Use of State Partnership Program Funds for 
        Civilians and Non-Defense Agency Personnel...............   220
      Section 1084--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for 
        Manufacturing Beyond Low Rate Initial Production at 
        Certain Prototype Integration Facilities.................   220
    Subtitle I--Other Matters....................................   220
      Section 1091--Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of 
        Certain Department of Defense Critical Infrastructure 
        Information..............................................   220
      Section 1092--Expansion of Scope of Humanitarian Demining 
        Assistance Program to Include Stockpiled Conventional 
        Munitions Assistance.....................................   220
      Section 1093--Mandatory Implementation of the Standing 
        Advisory Panel on Improving Coordination Among the 
        Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the 
        United States Agency for International Development on 
        Matters of National Security.............................   220
      Section 1094--Number of Navy Carrier Air-Wings and Carrier 
        Air-Wing Headquarters....................................   221
      Section 1095--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for 
        Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment.........   221
      Section 1096--National Rocket Propulsion Strategy..........   221
      Section 1097--Inclusion of Religious Symbols as Part of 
        Military Memorials.......................................   222
      Section 1098--Unmanned Aerial Systems and National Airspace   222
      Section 1099--Sense of Congress Regarding the Killing of 
        Osama Bin Laden..........................................   222
      Section 1099A--Grants to Certain Regulated Companies for 
        Specified Energy Property Not Subject to Normalization 
        Rules....................................................   222
      Section 1099B--Submittal of Information Regarding 
        Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, 
        Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.....................................   222
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   222
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   222
      Department of Defense Hiring Processes.....................   222
      Pay Parity for Department of Defense Federal Wage System 
        Employees Employed at Joint Military Institutions........   224
      Performance Management Authorities for the Department of 
        Defense..................................................   224
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   225
      Section 1101--Amendments to Department of Defense Personnel 
        Authorities..............................................   225
      Section 1102--Provisions Related to the Department of 
        Defense Performance Management System....................   225
      Section 1103--Repeal of Sunset Provision Relating to Direct 
        Hire Authority at Demonstration Laboratories.............   226
      Section 1104--Denial of Certain Pay Adjustments for 
        Unacceptable Performance.................................   226
      Section 1105--Revisions to Beneficiary Designation 
        Provisions for Death Gratuity Payable Upon Death of a 
        Government Employee......................................   226
      Section 1106--Extension of Authority to Waive Annual 
        Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay 
        for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas..........   227
      Section 1107--Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations............   227
      Section 1108--Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators....   227
      Section 1109--Authority to Waive Recovery of Certain 
        Payments Made under Civilian Employees Voluntary 
        Separation Incentive Program.............................   228
      Section 1110--Extension of Continued Health Benefits.......   228
      Section 1111--Authority to Waive Maximum Age Limit for 
        Certain Appointments.....................................   229
      Section 1112--Sense of Congress Relating to Pay Parity for 
        Federal Employees Serving at Certain Remote Military 
        Installations............................................   229
      Section 1113--Reports by Office of Special Counsel.........   229
      Section 1114--Disclosure of Senior Mentors.................   229
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   230
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   230
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   231
      African Security Sector Reform.............................   231
      Closure of United States Military Installations and 
        Alteration of Basing Arrangements in European Command 
        Theater of Operations....................................   232
      Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program.................   232
      Joint Military Exercises with Iraq.........................   233
      Military and Security Developments Involving the People's 
        Republic of China........................................   234
      Military Power of Iran.....................................   234
      NATO Special Operations Headquarters.......................   234
      Report on Deployment of Assets and Personnel to Libya......   235
      Taxing Foreign Assistance in Afghanistan...................   235
      Transparency in NATO Arms Sales............................   236
      Unfunded Requirements of the Department of Defense.........   236
      United States Missile Defense Cooperation with Russia......   237
      U.S. Africa Command and the Lord's Resistance Army.........   238
      Village Stability Operations and the Afghan Local Police 
        Program in Afghanistan...................................   238
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   239
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   239
      Section 1201--Expansion of Authority for Support of Special 
        Operations to Combat Terrorism...........................   239
      Section 1202--Modification and Extension of Authorities 
        Relating to Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign 
        Military Forces..........................................   239
      Section 1203--Five-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-
        Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities..............   240
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
      Pakistan...................................................   240
      Section 1211--Authority To Establish a Program To Develop 
        and Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan.....   240
      Section 1212--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in 
        Afghanistan..............................................   240
      Section 1213--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of 
        Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United 
        States Military Operations...............................   241
      Section 1214--Extension and Modification of Pakistan 
        Counterinsurgency Fund...................................   241
      Section 1215--Report on Extension of United States-Iraq 
        Status of Forces Agreement...............................   242
      Section 1216--Authority to Support Operations and 
        Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq.   242
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   243
      Section 1221--Review and Report on Iran's and China's 
        Conventional and Anti-Access Capabilities................   243
      Section 1222--Report and Consultation on Energy Security of 
        NATO Alliance............................................   243
      Section 1223--Extension of Report on Progress Toward 
        Security and Stability in Afghanistan....................   243
      Section 1224--Report on Military and Security Developments 
        Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea......   244
      Section 1225--National Security Risk Assessment of the 
        United States Federal Debt Owned by the People's Republic 
        of China.................................................   244
      Section 1226--Congressional Notification Requirement before 
        Permanent Relocation of Any United States Military Unit 
        Stationed Outside the United States......................   244
      Section 1227--Annual Report on Military Power of the 
        People's Republic of China...............................   245
      Section 1228--Limitation on Funds to Provide the Russian 
        Federation with Access to United States Missile Defense 
        Technology...............................................   245
      Section 1229--International Agreements Relating to Missile 
        Defense..................................................   245
      Section 1230--Non-strategic Nuclear Weapon Reductions and 
        Extended Deterrence Policy...............................   246
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   247
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   247
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   248
      Cooperative Threat Reduction Biological Surveillance 
        Network..................................................   248
      Cooperative Threat Reduction of Biological Weapons.........   249
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   250
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   250
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   250
      Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Cooperative Biological Engagement Program................   250
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   250
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   250
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   250
      Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................   250
      Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................   251
      Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 
        Defense..................................................   251
      Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities, Defense-Wide.................................   251
      Section 1405--Defense Inspector General....................   251
      Section 1406--Defense Health Program.......................   251
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   251
      Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 
        Funds....................................................   251
      Section 1412--Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for 
        Previously Authorized Disposals from the National Defense 
        Stockpile................................................   251
    Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................   252
      Section 1421--Changes to Management Organization to the 
        Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program...........   252
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   252
      Section 1431--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed 
        Forces Retirement Home...................................   252
      Section 1432--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint 
        Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs 
        Medical Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. 
        Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois......................   252
      Section 1433--Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund......   252
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
    CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.......................................   253
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   253
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   253
      CV-22 Combat Loss Replacement Funding......................   253
      Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund........................   253
      MH-60 Combat Loss Replacement Funding......................   254
      National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund........   255
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   255
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   255
      Section 1501--Purpose......................................   255
      Section 1502--Procurement..................................   255
      Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..   255
      Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance....................   256
      Section 1505--Military Personnel...........................   256
      Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................   256
      Section 1507--Defense Health Program.......................   256
      Section 1508--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities, Defense-wide.................................   256
      Section 1509--Defense Inspector General....................   256
    Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   256
      Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations.......   256
      Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority...................   256
    Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters....................   256
      Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.............   256
      Section 1532--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United 
        States Funds for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq.....   257
      Section 1533--One-Year Extension of Project Authority and 
        Related Requirements of Task Force for Business and 
        Stability Operations in Afghanistan......................   257
TITLE XVI--ADDITIONAL BUDGET ITEMS...............................   258
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   258
    Subtitle A--Procurement......................................   258
      Section 1601--Budget Item Relating to Modification of 
        Torpedoes and Related Equipment..........................   258
      Section 1602--Budget Item Relating to Anti-Submarine 
        Warfare Electronic Equipment.............................   258
      Section 1603--Budget Item Relating to Shallow Water Mine 
        Counter Measures.........................................   258
      Section 1604--Budget Item Relating to LHA-7 Ship Program...   258
      Section 1605--Budget Item Relating to Mobility Aircraft 
        Simulators...............................................   258
      Section 1606--Budget Item Relating to Modifications to 
        Aircraft.................................................   258
      Section 1607--Budget Item Relating to SH-60 Crew and 
        Passenger Survivability Upgrades.........................   258
      Section 1608--Budget Item Relating to Modification of In-
        Service A-10 Aircraft....................................   259
      Section 1609--Budget Item Relating to Radar Support........   259
      Section 1610--Budget Item Relating to Electronic Equipment-
        Automation...............................................   259
      Section 1611--Budget Item Relating to Base Defense Systems.   259
      Section 1612--Budget Item Relating to Sniper Rifle 
        Modifications............................................   259
      Section 1613--Budget Item Relating to Generators and 
        Associated Equipment.....................................   259
      Section 1614--Budget Item Relating to National Guard and 
        Reserve Equipment........................................   259
    Subtitle B--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation......   260
      Section 1616--Budget Item Relating to New Design SSN.......   260
      Section 1617--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Submarine 
        System Development.......................................   260
      Section 1618--Budget Item Relating to Surface Anti-
        Submarine Warfare........................................   260
      Section 1619--Budget Item Relating to Ship Preliminary 
        Design and Feasibility Studies...........................   260
      Section 1620--Budget Item Relating to Industrial 
        Preparedness.............................................   260
      Section 1621--Budget Item Relating to Mixed Conventional 
        Load Capability for Bomber Aircraft......................   260
      Section 1622--Budget Item Relating to TACAIR-launched UAS 
        Capability Development...................................   260
      Section 1623--Budget Item Relating to Electro-photonic 
        Component Capability Development.........................   261
      Section 1624--Budget Item Relating to Airborne 
        Reconnaissance Systems...................................   261
      Section 1625--Budget Item Relating to Small Business 
        Innovative Research......................................   261
      Section 1626--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research 
        Sciences.................................................   261
      Section 1627--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research 
        Sciences.................................................   261
      Section 1628--Budget Item Relating to Communications 
        Advanced Technology......................................   261
      Section 1629--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision 
        Technology...............................................   261
      Section 1630--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision 
        Technology...............................................   262
      Section 1631--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   262
      Section 1632--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   262
      Section 1633--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   262
      Section 1634--Budget Item Relating to Rotary Wing Surfaces.   262
      Section 1635--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions 
        Technology...............................................   262
      Section 1636--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions 
        Advanced Technology......................................   262
      Section 1637--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions 
        Advanced Technology......................................   263
      Section 1638--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology.   263
      Section 1639--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology.   263
      Section 1640--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology.   263
      Section 1641--Budget Item Relating to Lightweight Body 
        Armor....................................................   263
      Section 1642--Budget Item Relating to Industrial 
        Preparedness Manufacturing Technology....................   263
      Section 1643--Budget Item Relating to Secure 
        Microelectronics.........................................   263
      Section 1644--Budget Item Relating to Army Tactical Command 
        and Control Hardware and Software........................   264
      Section 1645--Budget Item Relating to Battlespace Knowledge 
        Development and Demonstration............................   264
      Section 1646--Budget Item Relating to Technology Transfer..   264
      Section 1647--Budget Item Relating to University Research 
        Initiatives..............................................   264
      Section 1648--Budget Item Relating to University Research 
        Initiatives..............................................   264
      Section 1649--Budget Item Relating to Clinical Care and 
        Research.................................................   264
      Section 1650--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology...   265
      Section 1651--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology...   265
      Section 1652--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology...   265
      Section 1653--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology...   265
      Section 1654--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   265
      Section 1655--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   265
      Section 1656--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   265
      Section 1657--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   266
      Section 1658--Budget Item Relating to Chemical and 
        Biological Defense Program...............................   266
      Section 1659--Budget Item Relating to Special Operations 
        Advanced Technology Development..........................   266
      Section 1660--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism 
        Technology Support.......................................   266
      Section 1661--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism 
        Technology Support.......................................   266
      Section 1662--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism 
        Technology Support.......................................   266
      Section 1663--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism 
        Technology Support.......................................   266
      Section 1664--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism 
        Technology...............................................   267
      Section 1665--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism 
        Technology...............................................   267
      Section 1666--Budget Item Relating to Weapons of Mass 
        Destruction Defeat Technologies..........................   267
      Section 1667--Budget Item Relating to Countermine Systems..   267
      Section 1668--Budget Item Relating to Mine and 
        Expeditionary Warfare Applied Research...................   267
      Section 1669--Budget Item Relating to Special Applications 
        for Contingencies........................................   267
      Section 1670--Budget Item Relating to Microelectronics 
        Technology Development and Support.......................   268
      Section 1671--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter 
        Sustainment Applied Research.............................   268
      Section 1672--Budget Item Relating to Marine Corps Landing 
        Force Technology.........................................   268
      Section 1673--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Concepts and 
        Simulation...............................................   268
      Section 1674--Budget Item Relating to Human Effectiveness 
        Applied Research.........................................   268
      Section 1675--Budget Item Relating to Aerospace Propulsion.   268
      Section 1676--Budget Item Relating to End Item Industrial 
        Preparedness Activities..................................   268
      Section 1677--Budget Item Relating to Sensors and 
        Electronic Survivability.................................   269
      Section 1678--Budget Item Relating to Military Engineering 
        Advanced Technology......................................   269
      Section 1679--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   269
      Section 1680--Budget Item Relating to Establishment of 
        Protocols for Joint Strike Fighter Lead-Free Electronics 
        Components...............................................   269
      Section 1681--Budget Item Relating to Portable Helicopter 
        Oxygen Delivery Systems..................................   269
      Section 1682--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Rotorcraft 
        Flight Research..........................................   269
      Section 1683--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket 
        Advanced Technology......................................   270
      Section 1684--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket 
        Advanced Technology......................................   270
      Section 1685--Budget Item Relating to Combat Vehicle 
        Improvement Programs.....................................   270
      Section 1686--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   270
      Section 1687--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   271
      Section 1688--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   271
      Section 1689--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced 
        Technology...............................................   271
      Section 1690--Budget Item Relating to Munitions 
        Standardization, Effectiveness, and Safety...............   271
      Section 1691--Budget Item Relating to Aegis Ballistic 
        Missile Defense..........................................   271
      Section 1692--Budget Item Relating to Operationally 
        Responsive Space.........................................   271
      Section 1693--Budget Item Relating to Space Technology.....   271
      Section 1694--Budget Item Relating to Army Net Zero 
        Programs.................................................   272
      Section 1695--Budget Item Relating to Offshore Range 
        Environmental Baseline Assessment........................   272
      Section 1696--Budget Item Relating to Department of Defense 
        Corrosion Protection Projects............................   272
      Section 1697--Budget Item Relating to Study of Renewable 
        and Alternative Energy Applications in the Pacific Region   272
      Section 1698--Budget Item Relating to Alternative Energy 
        for Mobile Power Applications............................   272
      Section 1699--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Battery 
        Technologies.............................................   272
      Section 1699A--Budget Item Relating to Operational Energy 
        Improvement Pilot Project................................   272
      Section 1699B--Budget Item Relating to Microgrid Pilot 
        Program..................................................   273
      Section 1699C--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Surface 
        Machinery Systems........................................   273
      Section 1699D--Budget Item Relating to Base Camp Fuel Cells   273
      Section 1699E--Budget Item Relating to Defense Alternative 
        Energy...................................................   273
      Section 1699F--Budget Item Relating to Radiological 
        Contamination Research...................................   273
    Subtitle C--Operation and Maintenance........................   273
      Section 1699G--Budget Item Relating to Department of 
        Defense Corrosion Prevention Program.....................   273
      Section 1699H--Budget Item Relating to Navy Emergency 
        Management and Preparedness..............................   273
      Section 1699I--Budget Item Relating to Army Simulation 
        Training Systems.........................................   274
      Section 1699J--Budget Item Relating to Army Industrial 
        Facility Energy Monitoring...............................   274
      Section 1699K--Budget Item Relating to Army National Guard 
        Simulation Training Systems..............................   274
      Section 1699L--Budget Item Relating to Army Arsenals.......   274
      Section 1699M--Budget Item Relating to Cold Weather 
        Protective Equipment.....................................   274

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   274

  PURPOSE........................................................   274
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW..............   275
      Section 2001--Short Title..................................   275
      Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to Be Specified by Law..........................   275
      Section 2003--Limitation on Implementation of Projects 
        Designated as Various Locations..........................   275
      Section 2004--Effective Date...............................   275
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   275
  SUMMARY........................................................   275
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   275
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   275
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   276
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   276
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   276
      Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2009 Project.........................   276
      Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Projects........................   276
      Section 2107--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain 
        Fiscal Year 2012 Project Using Prior-Year Unobligated 
        Army Military Construction Funds.........................   276
      Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Projects.......................................   276
      Section 2109--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2009 Projects.......................................   276
      Section 2110--Technical Amendments to Correct Certain 
        Project Specifications...................................   277
      Section 2111--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army 
        Construction and Land Acquisition Projects...............   277
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   277
  SUMMARY........................................................   277
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   277
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   277
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   278
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   278
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   278
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   278
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   278
      Section 2205--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Project........................................   278
      Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2009 Projects.......................................   278
      Section 2207--Additional Budget Items Relating to Navy 
        Construction and Land Acquisition Projects...............   278
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   279
  SUMMARY........................................................   279
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   279
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   279
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   279
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   279
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   280
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   280
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   280
      Section 2305--Modification of Authorization to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project.........................   280
      Section 2306--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2009 Project........................................   280
      Section 2307--Limitation on Implementation of Consolidation 
        of Air and Space Operations Center of the Air Force......   280
      Section 2308--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air Force 
        Construction and Land Acquisition Projects...............   280
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   281
  SUMMARY........................................................   281
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   281
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   281
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   282
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   282
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   282
      Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects......   282
      Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   282
      Section 2404--Additional Budget Items Relating to Defense 
        Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects......   282
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   282
      Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
        Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide..............   282
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
    PROGRAM......................................................   282
  SUMMARY........................................................   282
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   283
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   283
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   283
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   283
  SUMMARY........................................................   283
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   283
      Explanation of Funding Adjustment..........................   283
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   284
    Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of 
      Appropriations.............................................   284
      Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects............................   284
      Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   284
      Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
        Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects.......   284
      Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects............................   284
      Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   284
      Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National 
        Guard and Reserve........................................   284
    Subtitle B--Additional Budget Items..........................   285
      Section 2611--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army 
        National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects   285
      Section 2612--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air 
        National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects   285
      Section 2613--Additional Budget Item Relating to Air Force 
        Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects.......   285
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   285
      Section 2621--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Project........................................   285
      Section 2622--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2009 Projects.......................................   285
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   285
  SUMMARY........................................................   285
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   286
      Base Realignment and Closure Community Recovery............   286
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   286
      Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990..........   286
      Section 2702--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure 
        Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 
        Closure Account 2005.....................................   286
      Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005..........   286
      Section 2704--Authority to Extend Deadline for Completion 
        of Limited Number of Base Closure and Realignment 
        Recommendations..........................................   287
      Section 2705--Increased Emphasis on Evaluation of Costs and 
        Benefits in Consideration and Selection of Military 
        Installations for Closure or Realignment.................   287
      Section 2706--Special Considerations Related to 
        Transportation Infrastructure in Consideration and 
        Selection of Military Installations for Closure or 
        Realignment..............................................   287
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   287
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   287
      Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Homeporting in Europe......   287
      Africa Command Basing Alternatives.........................   288
      Army Housing Shortfall at Growth Installations.............   288
      Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques to 
        Achieve Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities.............   288
      Castner Range Complex......................................   289
      Collateral Support for Infrastructure and Real Property 
        Programs.................................................   289
      Comptroller General Report Regarding Third-Party Financing 
        for Renewable Energy Projects on Military Installations..   290
      Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's 
        Report on the Arctic and Northwest Passage...............   291
      Construction Unit Costs....................................   291
      Cooperative Agreements to Facilitate Defense Posture Review 
        Initiatives..............................................   292
      Corrosion Evaluation for Facilities and Infrastructure.....   293
      Department of Defense Microgrid Activities.................   293
      Elementary and Secondary Schools on Military Installations.   294
      Energy and Water Utilities Privatization...................   294
      Fort Bragg Parking Assessment..............................   295
      Homeowners Assistance Program..............................   295
      Leasing of Military Museums................................   296
      Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range...................   296
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   297
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   297
      Section 2801--Prohibition on Use of Any Cost-Plus System of 
        Contracting for Military Construction and Military Family 
        Housing Projects.........................................   297
      Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects.........   297
      Section 2803--Condition on Rental of Family Housing in 
        Foreign Countries for General and Flag Officers..........   298
      Section 2804--Protections for Suppliers of Labor and 
        Materials under Contracts for Military Construction 
        Projects and Military Family Housing Projects............   298
      Section 2805--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use 
        Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects 
        inside United States Central Command Area of 
        Responsibility and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of 
        Africa Areas of Responsibility and Interest..............   298
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   298
      Section 2811--Clarification of Authority to Use Pentagon 
        Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund for Minor 
        Construction and Alteration Activities at Pentagon 
        Reservation..............................................   298
      Section 2812--Removal of Discretion of Secretaries of the 
        Military Departments Regarding Purposes for which 
        Easements for Rights-of-Way May Be Granted...............   298
      Section 2813--Limitations on Use or Development of Property 
        in Clear Zone Areas......................................   299
      Section 2814--Defense Access Road Program Enhancements to 
        Address Transportation Infrastructure in Vicinity of 
        Military Installations...................................   299
    Subtitle C--Energy Security..................................   299
      Section 2821--Consolidation of Definitions Used in Energy 
        Security Chapter.........................................   299
      Section 2822--Consideration of Energy Security in 
        Developing Energy Projects on Military Installations 
        Using Renewable Energy Sources...........................   299
      Section 2823--Establishment of Interim Objective for 
        Department of Defense 2025 Renewable Energy Goal.........   299
      Section 2824--Use of Centralized Purchasing Agents for 
        Renewable Energy Certificates to Reduce Cost of Facility 
        Energy Projects Using Renewable Energy Sources and 
        Improve Efficiencies.....................................   299
      Section 2825--Identification of Energy-Efficient Products 
        for Use in Construction, Repair, or Renovation of 
        Department of Defense Facilities.........................   300
      Section 2826--Core Curriculum and Certification Standards 
        for Department of Defense Energy Managers................   300
      Section 2827--Submission of Annual Department of Defense 
        Energy Management Reports................................   301
      Section 2828--Continuous Commissioning of Department of 
        Defense Facilities to Resolve Operating Problems, Improve 
        Comfort, Optimize Energy Use, and Identify Retrofits.....   301
      Section 2829--Requirement for Department of Defense to 
        Capture and Track Data Generated in Metering Department 
        Facilities...............................................   301
      Section 2830--Metering of Navy Piers to Accurately Measure 
        Energy Consumption.......................................   301
      Section 2831--Report on Energy-Efficiency Standards and 
        Prohibition on Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and 
        Environmental Design Gold or Platinum Certification......   301
    Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment...........   302
      Section 2841--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funding to 
        Support Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of 
        Military Installations and Relocation of Military 
        Personnel on Guam........................................   302
      Section 2842--Medical Care Coverage for H-2B Temporary 
        Workforce on Military Construction Projects on Guam......   302
      Section 2843--Certification of Military Readiness Need for 
        Firing Range on Guam as Condition on Establishment of 
        Range....................................................   302
      Section 2844--Repeal of Condition on Use of Specific 
        Utility Conveyance Authority regarding Guam Integrated 
        Water and Wastewater Treatment System....................   302
    Subtitle E--Land Conveyances.................................   302
      Section 2851--Land Exchange, Fort Bliss, Texas.............   302
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   303
      Section 2861--Change in Name of the Industrial College of 
        the Armed Forces to the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for 
        National Security and Resource Strategy..................   303
      Section 2862--Limitation on Reduction in Number of Members 
        of the Armed Forces Assigned to Permanent Duty at a 
        Military Installation to Effectuate Realignment of 
        Installation.............................................   303
      Section 2863--Prohibition on Naming Department of Defense 
        Real Property after a Member of Congress.................   303

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   303

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   303
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   303
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   304
    National Nuclear Security Administration.....................   304
      Overview...................................................   304
      Nuclear Modernization......................................   304
      Weapons Activities.........................................   306
        Stockpile Stewardship....................................   307
        Stockpile Management.....................................   307
        Directed Stockpile Work..................................   308
        B61 Phase 6.3 Life Extension Program.....................   308
        Science Campaign.........................................   309
        Engineering Campaign.....................................   309
        Readiness Campaign.......................................   309
        Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield 
          Campaign...............................................   310
        Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign...............   311
          Exa-scale computing at the Department of Energy and 
            National Nuclear Security Administration National 
            Laboratories.........................................   311
        Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities...............   311
          Report on project management for large-scale 
            construction programs................................   312
        Secure Transportation Asset..............................   313
          Comptroller General Evaluation of Study on Options for 
            Nuclear Weapon Transportation........................   313
        Work for Others at the National Nuclear Laboratories.....   314
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................   314
        Nuclear Centers of Excellence............................   314
        Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention..........   315
      Naval Reactors.............................................   315
      Office of the Administrator................................   316
    Environmental and Other Defense Activities...................   316
      Overview...................................................   316
      Defense Environmental Cleanup..............................   316
      Other Defense Activities...................................   317
      Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................   317
        Report on Mixed Oxide Fuel...............................   317
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   318
    Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations.........   318
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   318
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................   318
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   318
      Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................   318
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   318
      Section 3111--Consolidated Reporting Requirements relating 
        to Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and 
        Infrastructure...........................................   318
      Section 3112--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security.................   319
      Section 3113--Use of Savings from Pension Reimbursements 
        for Budgetary Shortfalls.................................   319
    Subtitle C--Reports..........................................   320
      Section 3121--Repeal of Certain Report Requirements........   320
      Section 3122--Progress on Nuclear Nonproliferation.........   320
      Section 3123--Reports on Role of Nuclear Sites and 
        Efficiencies.............................................   321
      Section 3124--Net Assessment of High-Performance Computing 
        Capabilities of Foreign Countries........................   322
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   322
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   322
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   322
      Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board....................   322
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   323
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   323
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   323
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   323
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   323
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   323
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   323
      Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National 
        Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 
        2012.....................................................   323
      Section 3502--Use of National Defense Reserve Fleet and 
        Ready Reserve Force Vessels..............................   324
      Section 3503--Recruitment Authority........................   324
      Section 3504--Ship Scrapping Reporting Requirement.........   324

DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES.......................................   324

  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   324
      Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables...   324
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT...........................................   325
      Section 4101--Procurement..................................   325
      Section 4102--Procurement for Overseas Contingency 
        Operations...............................................   373
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..........   388
      Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..   388
      Section 4202--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 
        for Overseas Contingency Operations......................   427
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................   430
      Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance....................   430
      Section 4302--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas 
        Contingency Operations...................................   448
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................   458
      Section 4401--Military Personnel...........................   458
      Section 4402--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency 
        Operations...............................................   459
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   460
      Section 4501--Other Authorizations.........................   460
      Section 4502--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency 
        Operations...............................................   464
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................   466
      Section 4601--Military Construction........................   466
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.....   492
      Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security 
        Programs.................................................   492

DEPARTMENTAL DATA................................................   503
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   503
Communications from Other Committees.............................   507
Fiscal Data......................................................   522
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................   522
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act...............   523
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................   523
Advisory of Earmarks.............................................   523
Oversight Findings...............................................   524
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   524
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   525
Federal Advisory Committee Statement.............................   525
Applicability to the Legislative Branch..........................   525
Committee Votes..................................................   525
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   538
Additional Views
  Additional Views of Representative Robert J. Wittman...........   539
  Additional Views of Representative Mike Coffman................   540
  Additional Views of Representative Chris Gibson................   541
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     112-78

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



 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                _______
                                

  May 17, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1540]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and 
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

  The amendments are as follows:

  The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the 
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the 
reported bill.

  The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to 
the text of the bill.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    The bill would, (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2012 for procurement and for research, development, test, 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2012 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2012: (a) the 
personnel strength for each active duty component of the 
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the 
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed 
Forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the 
active and Reserve Components of the military departments; (4) 
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel 
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel 
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas 
Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2012 for the Department of Energy national security 
programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2012 for the Maritime Administration.

                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, is a key mechanism through which the Congress 
of the United States fulfills one of its primary 
responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the 
Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress the 
power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a 
Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of 
the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of 
Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of 
Defense (DOD) generally, and over the military application of 
nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The 
committee bill includes the large majority of the findings and 
recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the 
current year, as informed by the experience gained over the 
previous decades of the committee's existence. The committee 
remains steadfast in its continued and unwavering support for 
the men and women of the armed forces, the civilian employees 
of the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of 
Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. The armed 
forces continue to be deeply engaged in a number of ongoing 
military operations around the world, most significantly, the 
wars in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of 
Iraq, and military operations in Libya. The committee is deeply 
committed to providing full authorization for the funding 
required to restore the readiness of our military; enhance the 
quality of life of military service members and their families; 
sustain and improve the armed forces; and properly safeguard 
the national security of the United States.
    In addition to providing authorization of appropriations, 
the committee bill ensures our troops deployed in Afghanistan, 
Iraq and around the world have the equipment, resources, 
authorities, training, and time needed to successfully complete 
their missions and return home; provides our warfighters and 
their families with the resources and support they need, 
deserve, and have earned; invests in the capabilities and force 
structure needed to protect the United States from current and 
future threats; mandates fiscal responsibility, transparency 
and accountability within the Department of Defense; and 
incentivizes competition for every tax-payer dollar associated 
with funding Department of Defense requirements.

Equipment, Resources, Authorities, Training, and Time to Accomplish 
        Missions

    Focusing on victory in Afghanistan, the committee bill 
affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict 
with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces pursuant to 
the Authorization for Use of Military Force from 2001. Further, 
the committee bill validates that the President's authority, 
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 
includes the authority to detain certain belligerents until the 
termination of hostilities. The committee bill includes several 
additional provisions to strengthen detention policies and 
procedures.
    With the nation at war, the committee further addresses Al 
Qaeda and affiliated groups' use of the internet as a new 
battlespace. The committee includes a provision that would 
provide authorization for the Defense Department to use 
cyberspace to confront that threat.
    The committee bill includes a subtitle of new authorities 
targeting corrupt contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 
committee is also concerned that the scheduled departure of 
U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011, will leave the 
Iraqi Security Forces with several critical capabilities gaps 
that may render it unable to achieve minimum combat readiness, 
thereby jeopardizing Iraq's stability and the United States 
hard fought gains in the region. Therefore, the committee bill 
includes a provision that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to report on any changes to the status of forces 
agreement between the United States and Iraq, as well as steps 
being taken to mitigate the Iraqi Security Forces capability 
gaps.
    As in previous years, the committee bill continues to 
address the Department of Defense's global train and equip 
authorities, to ensure that the United States has willing and 
capable partners in the war against terrorism and radical 
extremism.

Resources for Warfighters and Families

    Recognizing that the service and sacrifice of our military 
men and women is a down payment on future health care benefits, 
the committee bill takes a sensible approach to TRICARE. The 
bill includes a provision that would allow for a modest fee 
increase, while protecting military families from steep fee 
increases in the future. The bill also provides a 1.6 percent 
increase in military basic pay.
    In addition, the bill establishes requirements for the 
management and measurement of dwell time--the time service 
members spend at home station following a deployment; personnel 
tempo--the time, including training time, that a service member 
is unable to spend time in housing in which the service member 
lives due to work duties; and operating tempo--the time units 
are involved in operational and training requirements. 
Moreover, the committee remains deeply concerned about the 
impact proposed future force reductions for the Army and Marine 
Corps will have on individual dwell time as well as the overall 
health and welfare of the all volunteer force.
    The committee bill provides additional services and 
protections for service members who have been the victim of 
sexual assault. The committee bill also includes language that 
would make mental health assessments available for members of 
the reserve components at the location of their unit during 
unit training and assemblies.

Capabilities and Force Structure for Current and Future Threats

    The committee bill authorizes appropriations for aircraft, 
ground vehicles, shipbuilding, missile defense, military space 
assets, and force protection equipment. The committee also 
authorizes robust funding for defense research and development. 
The committee bill addresses vulnerabilities to information 
systems and proposes steps necessary to secure sensitive 
information.
    Looking to the future, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff recently noted that our rising debt is one of the 
greatest threats to our national security. Moreover, a Chinese 
defense official recently stated that Beijing was ``preparing 
for war in all directions.'' As such, the committee bill 
includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a national security risk assessment of U.S. federal 
debt held by China. The legislation also includes a number of 
provisions related to the military strength of China and Iran, 
especially as it relates to anti-access and area denial 
capabilities.
    The committee is increasingly concerned about instability 
on the Korean peninsula, particularly given anticipated 
leadership changes within the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea (DPRK). Therefore, the committee includes a requirement 
for a detailed report on the military and security developments 
involving the DPRK in order to more accurately assess the U.S. 
capabilities required in the western Pacific.
    The ballistic missile threat continues to increase both 
quantitatively and quantitatively. The committee bill would 
provide additional resources for development, test and fielding 
of missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland and support 
the implementation of the Administration's phased adaptive 
approach for regional missile defense.
    A credible and reliable nuclear deterrent has been 
fundamental to U.S. security for decades and will continue to 
be for the foreseeable future. As such, the committee fully 
funds the Administration's requested funding increase for 
nuclear modernization in order to reverse what the bipartisan 
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 
States called a ``pattern of underinvestment over the last two 
decades.'' The committee seeks to further ensure that the 
Administration is held accountable to its modernization 
promises and recommends prudent measures to limit further 
nuclear force reductions without first ensuring our deterrent 
is modernized and our commitments to our allies can be met.

Fiscal Responsibility, Transparency, and Accountability

    The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's 
budget and identified inefficiencies to invest those savings 
into higher national security priorities. The committee bill 
reflects the fact that as a nation, we must make tough choices 
in order to provide for America's common defense by examining 
every aspect of the defense enterprise to find ways that we can 
accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more 
effectively. In addition, the legislation reduces costly 
reporting requirements and sets new standards for DOD financial 
management, including standards for financial management 
personnel, reporting, and budgeting for financial auditing.

Incentivizing Competition

    The committee continues to believe that competition reduces 
costs, increases quality, and improves vendor performance. For 
this reason, the committee recommends several provisions to 
foster competition in defense acquisitions. The committee 
includes a provision that would mandate competition throughout 
the life cycle of major weapon system at the component and 
subcomponent levels. The committee also includes a provision 
that requires a competitive acquisition strategy for the 
propulsion system of the next-generation bomber. In addition, 
the committee takes steps to incentivize competition for next-
generation military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) 
technology development by transferring funding for this effort 
out of the legacy satellite program and into a program element 
for next-generation MILSATCOM technology development. 
Furthermore, the committee takes steps to ensure preservation 
of property related to the F136 propulsion system and requires 
the Secretary of Defense to provide support and allow access to 
such property to enable the contractor to continue development 
and testing of the system at no cost to the government. The 
committee applauds the contractor for continuing development 
and testing of the F136 propulsion system despite the steps 
taken by the Department of Defense to cancel the program. The 
committee remains steadfast in its belief that a competitive 
alternative to the currently-planned F136 is critical to the 
success of the Joint Strike Fighter program, and such 
competition will result in better engine performance, improved 
contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial base, 
increased engine reliability, and improved operational 
readiness.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 results from hearings 
that began on January 26, 2011, and that were completed on 
April 14, 2011. The full committee conducted 14 sessions. In 
addition, a total of 26 sessions were conducted by 6 different 
subcommittees.

                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 1540, as amended, by a vote of 60-
1.

                EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

    The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1540. The title of 
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the 
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as 
amended.

            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

    The bill does not generally provide budget authority. This 
bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriation acts 
will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives 
to adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on 
the Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
    The bill addresses the following categories in the 
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, 
development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; 
military personnel; working capital funds; and military 
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National 
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve and the Maritime 
Administration.
    Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in 
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military 
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of 
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide 
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military 
personnel.

          SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL

    The President requested discretionary budget authority of 
$689.0 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the 
Armed Services Committee for fiscal year 2012. Of this amount, 
$553.0 billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense 
programs, $117.8 billion was requested for the overseas 
contingency operations requirements covering the entire fiscal 
year, and $18.1 billion was requested for Department of Energy 
national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board.
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $690.1 billion in fiscal year 2012, including 
$117.8 billion for overseas contingency operations. The base 
committee authorization of $571.1 billion is a $5.2 billion 
increase above the levels provided for in the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383).
    The following table summarizes the committee's recommended 
discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for 
fiscal year 2012 and compares these amounts to the President's 
request.


                      BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

    The President's total request for the national defense 
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2012 is $702.9 billion, as 
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to 
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 
request includes discretionary funding for national defense 
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary 
funding for programs that do not require additional 
authorization in fiscal year 2012, and mandatory programs.
    The following table details changes to all aspects of the 
national defense budget function.


            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $111.5 
billion for procurement. This represents a $300.0 million 
increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee recommends authorization of $111.5 billion, a 
decrease of $68.3 million from the fiscal year 2012 request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
procurement program are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $7.1 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $6.5 billion, a decrease of $513.9 
million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Aerial Common Sensor

    The budget request contained $539.6 million for 18 C-12 
aircraft to provide manned airborne intelligence, collection, 
processing, and targeting support.
    The Army had planned to award a low-rate initial production 
contract for 50 percent of the total projected procurement in 
late fiscal year 2012. The program has experienced significant 
delays due to a number of factors, including development 
contract award protests, shortcomings in the award process, 
which the Army has taken responsibility for, and a subsequent 
delay in the development contract award.
    The committee recommends $15.7 million, a decrease of 
$523.9 million, for the Aerial Common Sensor to provide manned 
airborne intelligence, collection, processing, and targeting 
support.

Airborne Reconnaissance Low

    The Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) is a multifunction, 
day/night, all weather DHC-7 fixed-wing reconnaissance 
aircraft. The Army is evaluating options to modernize the ARL 
fleet. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the current state 
of the ARL fleet, including reliability and maintainability 
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The 
report should also include a review of the options currently 
under consideration for major ARL modernization programs.

Air filters for National Guard helicopters

    The committee notes that Inlet Barrier Filtration (IBF) and 
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) filtration systems capture 99 
percent of air particles, including grit and other abrasives 
that degrade and destroy the internal components of rotorcraft 
engines. The substantial cost savings in engine repair, 
overhaul, class 9 replacement parts, and maintenance labor have 
been well documented throughout the Army and Army National 
Guard (ARNG). The committee believes that installing IBF and 
APU filtration systems on these aircraft could reduce 
maintenance costs and increase readiness rates. The committee 
encourages the ARNG to fund IBF and APU filtration systems in 
the future.

CH-47F Chinook helicopter

    The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the CH-47F Chinook 
helicopter includes funding for the fifth year of a 5-year 
multiyear procurement contract. The committee notes that this 
contract has provided stability to the program and savings to 
the taxpayer of over $450.0 million. In view of the continuing 
need for sustained procurement of the CH-47F, the Army's 
acquisition strategy calls for a second 5-year multiyear 
contract beginning in fiscal year 2013. The committee agrees 
with the Army strategy to continue procurement with substantial 
cost savings for the CH-47F, and encourages the Department of 
Defense to include a request for authority for a new multiyear 
contract in the fiscal year 2013 budget submission.

UH-72A Lakota helicopter aircraft survivability equipment

    The budget request contained $250.4 million for procurement 
of 39 UH-72A Lakota helicopters.
    The committee remains supportive of the UH-72A helicopter 
program. The committee notes that with over 150 aircraft now 
delivered to the Army on cost and within schedule, the UH-72A 
has proven to be a robust and efficient multirole platform. The 
committee understands that the UH-72A has a documented 
requirement for 210 helicopters to support domestic missions in 
``permissive'' environments. The committee believes that there 
may be opportunities to leverage this aircraft to meet 
additional operational needs for the warfighter. However, 
before this happens, the committee needs to understand how the 
Army defines ``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive'' 
environments. In addition the committee needs to understand 
what the associated survivability modifications would be 
required and if such modifications would be feasible, given 
size, weight, and power limitations, if the mission envelope of 
the UH-72A was expanded beyond ``permissive'' environments.
    The committee recommends $250.4 million, the full amount 
requested, for procurement of 39 UH-72A Lakota helicopters.

                       Missile Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $1.5 
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.5 billion, a decrease of $14.5 million, for 
fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $1.9 
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2.4 billion, 
an increase of $427.5 million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 
program are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Abrams tank program National Guard modernization

    The budget request contained $181.3 million for the Abrams 
tank upgrade program.
    The committee notes that the National Guard currently has 
six Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCT) that consist of the 
Abrams M1A1 tank which is an analog based system and active 
duty HBCTs operate the more modern M1A2 tank which uses a 
digital system. The committee also notes that there are 
significant differences in capability, particularly for growth 
and survivability between the M1A1 and M1A2 SEP (version 2) 
that now is being produced under the current Multi-Year 
Procurement contract. The committee understands that under the 
original Future Combat Systems (FCS) strategy, the Army planned 
to cascade the M1A2 tanks to the National Guard. However, as a 
result of the termination of the FCS program, the Army has yet 
to develop a plan to modernize the National Guard HBCT in the 
near term. Given the Army's top development project is 
currently the tactical ``network,'' which requires a digital 
capability, the committee believes the National Guard needs the 
M1A2 tank in order to stay aligned with the Army's tactical 
network strategy.
    The committee further notes that the Army must maintain the 
ability for its Heavy Brigade Combat Teams to overmatch any 
possible threat in the future. The committee is concerned that 
even with the funds requested for fiscal year 2012, the Abrams 
tank production would shut down in fiscal year 2013, and the 
Army is unsure that the production line and supporting 
industrial base would be available when it starts future 
upgrades to Abrams tanks in fiscal year 2016. The committee 
believes that the Army must rapidly accelerate future Abrams 
tank upgrades, or it must continue production of the most 
capable version of the M1 Abrams until the upgrade program 
begins. The committee believes that the most prudent course of 
action is to bridge the planned production gap with production 
of the most capable version of the M1 tank, the M1A2 system 
enhancement program version 2 (M1A2 SEPv2), at the most 
economical rate possible. The committee also believes that the 
cost of shutting down and then restarting the Abrams production 
line would be significant and may cost as much as it would to 
``pure fleet'' the National Guard with the most modern version 
of Abrams tanks.
    The committee recommends $453.3 million, an increase of 
$272.0 million, for the Abrams tank upgrade program to procure 
additional M1A2 SEPv2 tanks using the current multi-year 
contract, with the additional tanks being used to replace less 
capable versions of the M1 tank in the Army National Guard or 
prepositioned equipment sets.

Bradley fighting vehicle program

    The budget request contained $250.7 million for the Bradley 
fighting vehicle (BFV) program.
    The committee is concerned that despite these funds, 
Bradley fighting vehicle production will effectively shut down 
for as long as 2 years, and that the Army cannot be sure that 
the production line and supporting industrial base will be 
available when it plans to restart production of upgraded 
Bradley vehicles in the future. The committee notes that 
second-tier suppliers of key components are already shutting 
down or planning to do so in the near future. The committee 
believes that a more prudent course of action is to bridge the 
production gap with continued production of the most capable 
version of the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M2A3, or pursuit 
of an interim upgrade program for the existing M2A3 fleet. 
Should the Army choose to produce more M2A3's, the committee 
believes that the Army could provide these vehicles to the Army 
National Guard, elements of the active Army not yet equipped 
with M2A3's, or prepositioned equipment sets. If the Army 
instead pursues an interim upgrade program for the current 
fleet of M2A3's, the committee encourages the Army to consider 
technology insertions to address vehicle power and 
survivability requirements.
    The committee recommends, $403.7 million, an increase of 
$153.0 million, for the Bradley fighting vehicle program.

M4 carbine product improvement program

    The budget request contained $25.1 million for M4 carbine 
modifications, of which $14.6 million was for the M4 carbine 
product improvement program (PIP).
    The committee understands the M4/M4A1 carbine product 
improvement program is a multi-phased incremental program to 
enhance its reliability, durability, maintainability, sustained 
rate of fire, and ergonomics. The committee notes the M4 
carbine PIP consists of two phases, composed of multiple 
increments within each phase. The committee is aware the 
program is not fully resourced to meet operational needs and 
has significant unfunded requirements across the Future Years 
Defense Program.
    The committee supports this M4/M4A1 PIP effort and 
encourages the Army to pursue best value, full and open 
competition for each phase and increment to include commercial-
off-the-shelf solutions. The committee also encourages the 
Secretary of the Army to adequately resource this effort.
    The committee recommends $14.6 million, the full amount of 
the request, for the M4/M4A1 PIP effort.

Stryker vehicles

    The budget request contained $685.8 million for procurement 
of 100 Stryker nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) 
reconnaissance vehicles and modifications to existing Stryker 
vehicles.
    The committee is concerned about the unstable requirements 
and continually changing production plans for Stryker vehicles 
and modifications. The committee notes that in addition to the 
100 vehicles requested in fiscal year 2012, the Army has 
validated unfunded requirements for 513 additional Stryker 
vehicles of various models. However, the committee notes that 
the Army now has in its inventory more than 400 Stryker 
vehicles in its ready-to-fight or depot repair cycle float 
fleets. The committee believes that increasing the size of the 
Stryker vehicle fleet beyond those vehicles that are resident 
in Stryker brigades is excessive. The Army should distribute or 
modify those Stryker vehicles to fulfill unmet validated 
requirements before increasing production of new Stryker 
vehicles beyond the 100 NBC reconnaissance variants requested 
in fiscal year 2012. Elsewhere in this title, the committee 
includes a provision that would limit the use of fiscal year 
2012 procurement funds until the Secretary of the Army provides 
information clarifying the Army's future Stryker vehicle 
production plans.
    The committee recommends $685.8 million, the full amount 
requested, for procurement of 100 additional Stryker NBC 
reconnaissance vehicles and modifications to existing Stryker 
vehicles.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $2.0 
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $2.0 billion, no change to the 
budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $9.7 
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $9.5 billion, a decrease of $170.8 million, 
for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of 
this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Body armor investment strategy

    The committee notes that section 141 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Secretary of Defense to establish procurement 
line items and research and development program elements for 
body armor programs. The committee notes the Secretary of 
Defense has failed to establish procurement line items and as a 
result, the committee is concerned about the long term 
investment strategy for body armor. The committee understands 
that under the Department's existing budgetary policy, funding 
to procure body armor, clothing, and other personal protective 
gear is typically included in the Operation and Maintenance 
appropriations account and is categorized as an ``expendable'' 
item. The committee is aware that the O&M appropriation 
accounts allow for greater flexibility in funding based on 
dynamic annual program requirements. The committee also notes 
that establishing a separate, procurement line item would not 
prevent the Department from continuing to use the O&M 
appropriation for sustainment purposes or limit the military 
departments' ability to use rapid acquisition authorities to 
ensure the fastest possible exploitation of body armor material 
improvements, production, or fielding.
    The committee believes that establishing an individual 
procurement line item would generate better accountability and 
transparency in long term planning, programming, and investment 
by the military services for the acquisition of body armor. 
Further, a long term investment strategy based on future 
requirement estimates could better position the body armor 
industrial base to rapidly respond to new threats or 
requirements as well as accelerate the amount of industry 
investment to further advancements in survivability and weight 
reduction.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to notify 
the congressional defense committees in writing beginning 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the actions 
being taken by the Department to comply with the creation of a 
procurement line item required by section 141 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 or provide 
justification for having not complied with the requirement. The 
committee further directs the Under Secretary to review the 
current definition of ``expendable items'' and determine 
whether body armor should still be considered an expendable 
item rather than a program system and to report the findings to 
the congressional defense committees within 60 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

Body armor requirements generation and weight reduction initiatives

    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, if required, update the current body armor 
requirements document through capabilities based assessments 
that would clearly define current and future force 
requirements, particularly in the area of weight reduction 
versus protection. The committee notes that the tradeoff 
between protection capabilities and weight is a major cost 
driver in body armor procurements. The committee is aware that 
available technology has not been able to keep the body armor 
system within the users' desired weight without sacrificing 
performance.
    The committee continues to recognize the critical 
importance of reducing the warfighters carrying combat load for 
current operations, specifically Operation Enduring Freedom 
(OEF), and considers this a high priority issue. The committee 
notes that body armor, along with water and ammunition, make up 
most of an individual's equipment weight, and that most 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are 
dismounted operations. The committee believes there should be 
greater urgency in providing appropriate levels of equipment to 
warfighters in OEF that would allow small unit commanders to 
better tailor mission equipment to effectively meet operational 
requirements. The committee believes the Department should 
incentivize the industrial base to achieve greater advancements 
in weight reduction technology that could reduce the individual 
carrying combat load, most notably in body armor.

Information management system for the National Guard

    The committee believes that the National Guard Bureau 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD CST) play 
an important role in support to civil authorities at a domestic 
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High Explosive 
(CBRNE) incident site. The committee is aware that a tactical 
information management system has been fielded to the CST's to 
provide crucial command, control, and communications 
capabilities. The committee is also aware that in the event of 
such an incident, National Guard assets such as the CBRNE 
Enhanced Response Force Package and Homeland Defense Response 
Force units could deploy to support the CST's. Therefore, to 
ensure connectivity and unity of effort of all deployed 
National Guard assets, the committee encourages the National 
Guard Bureau to expand the CST information management system to 
these follow-on forces.

Joint Tactical Radio System

    The budget request contained $775.8 million for the Joint 
Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program. Of this amount, $204.8 
million was for Ground Mobile Radio (GMR), $426.2 million was 
for Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit (HMS) radio, and 
$144.8 million was for Airborne and Maritime/Fixed (AMF) 
station radio.
    The committee remains supportive of the JTRS program and 
understands that the Army has made progress in its tactical 
network strategy, of which JTRS is a key component. The 
committee supports the Army's plan to pursue non-proprietary 
waveforms, and its plan to conduct full and open competition 
during full-rate production.
    The committee encourages the Army to pursue full and open 
competition of the HMS radios prior to full rate production, if 
feasible, to ensure the best product is available to the 
warfighter at the best price. Such acquisition and contracting 
must fit within the competition focused elements of the 
Secretary of Defense's efficiency initiatives.
    The committee understands that the Army is likely to lower 
its current basis of issue of GMR radios for Brigade Combat 
Teams (BCT). In addition, when factoring in the fiscal year 
2011 and 2012 requests the Army has requested procurement of 
almost 10 brigade sets of GMR radios. Therefore, elsewhere in 
this title, the committee includes a provision that would 
restrict the use of fiscal year 2012 procurement funds until 
the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense 
committees written certification that the acquisition strategy 
for full-rate production includes full and open competition. In 
addition, the committee recommends a reduction in funds for GMR 
procurement due to a lack of clarity regarding the Army's 
overall requirements for GMR radios.
    The committee recommends $716.0 million, a decrease of 
$35.8 million, for the JTRS GMR program, and a decrease of 
$24.0 million for the Maritime/Fixed station program.

Light tactical vehicle investment strategy

    The budget request contained $161.6 million to recapitalize 
1,362 high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs).
    The committee understands the military services, in 
coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, are 
continuing to update and refine their investment strategies for 
their respective light tactical wheeled vehicles (LTV) and 
continue to seek a balance of affordable capabilities across 
their light tactical vehicle (LTV) fleets. The committee notes 
the military services' LTV fleets consist primarily of 
unarmored and armored HMMWVs and will also include the future 
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The committee 
understands that due to affordability concerns, the Army and 
the Marine Corps are planning to reduce their LTV fleets by 
approximately 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively, over the 
next five years. The committee understands the Army has 
acknowledged that a significant risk to their strategy is the 
availability of expected TWV procurement funds and as a result 
the committee has concerns over adequately maintaining the LTV 
industrial base.
    The committee also understands that the Army and the Marine 
Corps both plan to competitively recapitalize their respective 
Up-Armor HMMWV (UAH) fleets with improvements to automotive 
performance and survivability in order to improve overall 
capability and extend life cycles. The committee is aware that 
the Army and the Marine Corps plan on retaining HMMWVs and UAHs 
in their inventories over the next 20 years and will use them 
extensively. The committee notes the competitive approach to 
improving the Army and the Marine Corps UAH fleets would be 
based on a best value, full and open competition beginning in 
fiscal year 2013 among public, private, and/or public-private 
partnerships. The committee supports this plan and encourages 
the Army and the Marine Corps to accelerate this program as a 
means to stabilize the LTV industrial base and provide a bridge 
to the JLTV program. The committee also expects the Army and 
the Marine Corps to coordinate on establishing joint 
requirements and resources for this program.
    Further, the committee is aware of the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) recent initiatives, in 
partnership with the Army and the Marine Corps, aimed at 
enhancing HMMWV survivability for the warfighter through the 
integration of ``structural blast chimney'' technology on 
original equipment manufacturer-produced HMMWVs. The committee 
understands DARPA is conducting ballistic, mobility, and 
reliability tests and that initial ballistic test results have 
indicated improvements to vehicle and warfighter survivability 
without increasing overall vehicle weight. The committee 
supports this effort and expects this technology would be 
considered, pending favorable test results, as part of the UAH 
competitive recapitalization program and would encourage the 
acceleration of this program.
    The committee recommends $161.6 million, the full amount of 
the request, for the current HMMWV recapitalization program and 
encourages the Army and the Marine Corps to adequately resource 
and accelerate the UAH competitive recapitalization program.

M915 line haul tractor trailer acquisition strategy

    The budget request contained $1.4 million for procurement 
of six M915 and M916 line haul tractor trailer trucks.
    The committee notes the current $51.0 million funding 
profile for fiscal years 2011-16 would only procure 115 
M915A5s. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to 
consider a full and open competition for any new future 
procurement should the M915 requirement increase. The committee 
also understands the Army Reserve has significant unfunded 
requirements for its M915 truck fleet and encourages the 
Secretary of the Army to develop courses of action that would 
accelerate meeting these requirements in a timely manner.
    The committee recommends $1.4 million, the full amount of 
the request, for the procurement of six M915 and M916 line haul 
tractor trailer trucks.

Tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition strategy

    The committee believes the sustainment of the tactical 
wheeled vehicle (TWV) industrial base could be affected by many 
operational and affordability challenges across the Future 
Years Defense Program. The Army's current TWV acquisition 
strategy employs a near-term investment plan of just over $1.0 
billion per year, slowly rising to approximately $2.5 billion 
per year through fiscal year 2025. The Secretary of the Army 
has indicated that these projected funding levels will not 
support continuation of the prior pace of TWV modernization, 
replacement, and recapitalization. In light of current budget 
constraints, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army 
and the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with industry, 
to jointly consider requesting multi-year contracting authority 
as a means to generate potential cost savings and sustain an 
efficient and cost effective TWV industrial base.

Weapon light upgrades

    The budget request contained $156.2 million for Night 
Vision Devices. Of this amount, no funds were requested for 
upgrade kits for Millennium Universal (MU) series weapon 
lights.
    The committee notes that the current Army inventory of 
approximately 100,000 MU series weapon lights incurs 
substantial cost to the Army due to battery replacement rates. 
The committee understands that retrofitting these weapon lights 
using the V-series KM4 upgrade kit, or other upgrade kits, may 
significantly reduce battery replacement demand, resulting in 
substantial annual savings to the Government. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of the Army to review options for 
weapon light upgrade kits in order to determine if any meet 
requirements and could produce the substantial savings due to 
lower battery usage.
    The committee recommends $156.2 million, the full amount of 
the request, for Night Vision Devices.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $220.6 
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 
The committee recommends authorization of $220.6 million, no 
change in the budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Efforts to mitigate the improvised explosive device threat to 
        dismounted operations

    The committee understands that the number of dismounted 
operations conducted by U.S. and coalition forces continue to 
rise in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee 
notes that although overall enemy improvised explosive device 
(IED) efficacy has decreased since October 2010, primarily due 
to early detection from dismounted forces, the severity of 
casualties increase when a dismounted IED effective attack 
occurs. The committee believes that efforts to mitigate the IED 
threat to dismounted forces should be a top priority for the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee recognizes that many mitigation efforts are 
currently being developed and procured by the Joint IED Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO) to counter the IED threat to dismounted 
forces. The committee also recognizes that a holistic approach 
is required that entails improved pre-deployment training, 
tactics, procedures, and availability of equipment to readily 
address capability gaps. The committee notes that JIEDDO is 
actively pursuing unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) as a counter-
IED solution to the IED threat to dismounted forces. The 
committee understands that JIEDDO has engaged industry and 
other Department of Defense agencies for potential UGV 
solutions that could be rapidly developed and fielded and 
encourages the aggressive pursuit to rapidly field a solution. 
The committee believes potential interim solutions would be 
operationally effective and should be considered for fielding, 
concurrent to pursuing a solution that meets and addresses all 
requirements as a means to mitigate the IED threat to 
dismounted forces.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization

    The budget request contains $2.8 billion for the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO).
    The committee understands JIEDDO was established in 
February 2006 to ``lead, advocate, and coordinate all DOD 
actions . . . to defeat IEDs as weapons of strategic 
influence.'' The committee expects improvised explosive devices 
(IEDs) to remain an enduring threat to U.S. forces. The 
committee notes that Congress has provided approximately $19.7 
billion to JIEDDO to counter the IED threat and that JIEDDO has 
reported significant progress in the counter-IED (C-IED) fight 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and in the Republic of 
Iraq. For instance, the committee understands enemy IED 
efficacy in Afghanistan has decreased since October 2010. The 
committee commends JIEDDO's efforts to rapidly develop, 
procure, and field programs to mitigate the IED threat in 
response to urgent operational needs. To build on the 
considerable progress made, the committee, in collaboration 
with the Government Accountability Office, will continue to 
conduct oversight of JIEDDO's capability to effectively manage 
and evaluate C-IED programs.
    The committee recommends $2.8 billion, the full amount of 
the request, for JIEDDO.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $18.6 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $18.6 billion, an increase of $4.5 
million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


V-22

    The budget request contained $2.2 billion for the 
procurement of V-22 aircraft.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
considering a follow-on multi-year procurement strategy for the 
V-22 program starting in fiscal year 2013. The multi-year 
procurement contract for fiscal years 2008-2012 provided 
stability to the program and savings of over $420.0 million 
compared to single-year contracts.
    The committee notes that since 2007, the V-22 has performed 
14 overseas deployments for the Marine Corps and Air Force 
Special Operations Forces in demanding environments under war 
time operational tempo, and understands that improvements in 
mission capable readiness rates across the fleet and decreases 
in costs per flight hour have been made as the aircraft has 
achieved its first 100,000 flight hours. The committee expects 
the Department of Defense to continue its focus on supply chain 
efficiency, maintenance best practices, and high reliability of 
select components in order to continue improvements to mission 
capable rates and decreased costs per flight hour. In view of 
the continuing need for sustained procurement of the V-22, the 
committee urges the Department of Defense to consider a request 
for authorization of a new multi-year procurement contract 
beginning in fiscal year 2013.
    The committee recommends $2.2 billion for the procurement 
of V-22 aircraft.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $3.4 
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $3.4 billion, an increase of $5.0 million, for 
fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $720.0 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. 
The committee recommends authorization of $720.0 million, no 
change to the budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are 
identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Laser guided air-launched rockets

    The budget request contained $118.4 million for airborne 
rockets, all types. Of this amount, no funds were requested for 
upgrading 5-inch diameter unguided rockets into 5-inch 
precision laser guided rockets.
    The committee is aware that the Marine Corps has requested 
through the universal urgent need statement process a laser 
guided 5-inch precision rocket to strike both fixed and moving 
targets effectively from tactical aircraft and rotorcraft. The 
committee is aware the Department of the Navy has performed 
successful test firings of 5-inch diameter laser guided rockets 
against both fixed and moving targets. The committee supports 
the Secretary of the Navy's actions to rapidly address this 
urgent operational need for the warfighter. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue to move 
aggressively to adequately fund, procure, and field a 5-inch 
precision laser-guided rocket through the rapid acquisition 
process in order to meet this urgent operational need.
    The committee recommends $118.4 million for airborne 
rockets, all types.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $14.9 
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $14.9 billion, a decrease of $50.0 
million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Amphibious Assault Ship

    The budget request contained $2.0 billion for the detail 
design and construction of the amphibious assault ship 
designated LHA-7.
    The delivery of the first ship of the America-class, LHA-6, 
has been significantly delayed. According to the Department of 
Defense ``Selected Acquisition Report'' of December 31, 2010, 
the delays are ``due to changing conditions in the shipyard 
portfolio which are driving labor demands in various trades''. 
These delays have had a cascading effect on LHA-7, which was 
scheduled to go on contract for detail design and construction 
in November 2010, but now the Navy estimates the contract will 
be delayed until the end of fiscal year 2011. Elsewhere in this 
title, the committee includes a provision that would authorize 
the Navy to conclude funding for LHA-7 in fiscal year 2013.
    The committee recommends $2.0 billion, a decrease of $50.0 
million, for LHA-7.

Navy Shipbuilding Program

    The budget request contained $14.9 billion for Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy.
    The committee is pleased that the Navy has turned around 
the downward spiral in battle force ship quantities, and the 
plan to achieve the floor of 313 ships appears to be 
achievable. To obtain the required capability and to provide 
the required stability to the fragile shipbuilding industrial 
base, the committee believes the following programs are 
crucial.
    CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford-class of aircraft 
carriers. The committee was critical when the Navy changed 
construction starts of these carriers from 4-year to 5-year 
centers. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to 
keep these aircraft carriers on 5-year centers at the most, 
with fiscal year 2013 being the first year of detail design and 
construction funding for CVN-79. The committee believes one key 
to success in this program will be to minimize changes from 
ship to ship in the class.
    The Virginia-class submarine program has proven itself to 
be a model shipbuilding program. Cost reduction efforts and 
ever-decreasing span time for construction and delivery allowed 
the Navy to fund two ships a year starting in fiscal year 2011, 
1 year earlier than previously planned. The committee believes 
that modularity of payloads and open interfaces for its weapons 
systems, including electronic warfare, will improve capability 
while being more affordable. To continue to get the most 
efficiency from this program, the committee encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to ensure that advance procurement for 
the next block of Virginia-class submarines is funded to 
required levels.
    Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the shipbuilding 
program is that it will be difficult to fund and maintain the 
current plan once the Navy begins to acquire replacements for 
the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine fleet. In testimony 
before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Navy 
officials suggested that there may be options to fund these 
boats outside of the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account. 
The committee believes that the industrial teaming arrangement 
has been successful on the Virginia-class submarine program and 
would encourage the Secretary of the Navy to use the 
capabilities of both submarine shipbuilders in crafting an 
affordable acquisition strategy for the Ohio-class Replacement 
Program.
    The re-start of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of 
destroyers is an important step in maintaining highly capable 
surface combatants in sufficient quantities, especially given 
the increased reliance on these ships to provide additional 
ballistic missile defense capabilities. Elsewhere in this 
title, the committee includes a provision that would grant 
multi-year procurement contract authority for these ships. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue 
pursuing an open architecture, data sharing approach to the 
maintenance and sustainability of existing weapons systems. 
This approach will allow for more competition and affordable 
upgrades.
    The committee received testimony that the Marine Corps' 
requirement for amphibious ships is 38 ships, but that the 
number of ships that are absolutely necessary with acceptable 
risk is 33. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy 
to continue pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships.

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $6.3 
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $6.3 billion, an increase of $7.6 million, for 
fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of 
this Act.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $1.4 
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $1.0 million, for 
fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $14.1 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $14.1 billion, an increase of $43.5 
million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


B-1 bomber aircraft force structure

    The committee understands that in fiscal year 2012 the Air 
Force plans to retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft and reduce the 
current combat-coded force structure from 36 B-1 bomber 
aircraft down to 30. The committee supports the Air Force's 
plan to retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft but does not support the 
plan to reduce the combat-coded force structure of B-1 bomber 
aircraft.
    In a report titled ``2007 Long-Range Strike White Paper'' 
required by the committee report (S. Rept. 109-254) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007, the Air Force stated that 96 combat-coded bomber 
aircraft total (36 B-1s, 16 B-2s, and 44 B-52s) were required 
to meet combatant commander requirements until a next-
generation long-range strike aircraft is fielded. Furthermore, 
the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review validated the requirement 
to maintain up to 96 combat-coded bomber aircraft.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to retire 6 B-
1 bomber aircraft but would require the Secretary to maintain a 
combat-coded inventory of 36 B-1 bomber aircraft. The committee 
is concerned that retirement of any B-1 aircraft is premature 
prior to a replacement long-range strike bomber aircraft 
reaching initial operational capability status.

Common vertical lift support platform

    The budget request contained $52.8 million for procurement 
of two common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) 
helicopters. The budget request also contained $5.4 million in 
title II of this Act for research, development, test, and 
evaluation activities associated with the CVLSP program.
    The CVLSP program is a new start for fiscal year 2012 that 
would eventually procure 93 non-developmental helicopters to 
provide vertical lift support for nuclear weapons convoy 
escort, emergency security response, National Capitol Region 
transport, and other Air Force missions with improved speed, 
range, capacity, and survivability.
    The committee notes that the Air Force plans to procure an 
in-production, non-developmental, government off-the-shelf, or 
commercial off-the-shelf aircraft for this purpose, and that 
the total development cost throughout the Future Years Defense 
Program is budgeted for $29.4 million. The committee expects 
the Department of the Air Force to adhere to this strategy to 
minimize development and procurement costs.
    The committee recommends $52.8 million for procurement of 
two CVLSP helicopters and $5.4 million for research, 
development, test, and evaluation activities associated with 
the CVSLP program.

Global Hawk

    The budget request contained $607.8 million for procurement 
of RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial systems (UAS).
    The committee is aware this platform is a critical high-
demand, low-density intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) asset that is being used extensively and 
effectively to perform critical missions in Operation New Dawn 
and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee also notes that 
this platform is being used effectively in global humanitarian 
and recovery operations. The committee supports the Global Hawk 
UAS program and should the Secretary of Defense determine that 
additional Global Hawk UAS are required, then the committee 
encourages using funds contained within this Act for the 
purposes of addressing those requirements.
    The committee recommends $607.8 million, the full amount of 
the request, for Global Hawk UAS.

Intra-theater and inter-theater airlift programs

    The budget request contained $396.8 million for C-17 
modernization, $1.1 billion for the C-5 Reliability Enhancement 
and Re-engineering program, $141.3 million for procurement of 1 
C-130H/J aircraft, $1.1 billion for procurement of 10 HC/MC/AC-
130 aircraft, and $571.6 million for 9 C-27J aircraft.
    The committee notes in regards to inter-theater airlift 
aircraft programs, the Secretary of the Air Force requested to 
repeal section 8062(g) of title 10, United States Code, which 
provides that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain a minimum 
inventory of 316 strategic inter-theater airlift aircraft. The 
committee does not support repeal and believes that a minimum 
inventory of 316 airlift aircraft provides a prudent balance of 
operational risk, affordability and sufficient organic 
capabilities in meeting the ever-increasing mobility 
requirements in support of the National Military Strategy and 
combat operations. The committee's rationale stems from 
concerns regarding the future viability of the Civil Reserve 
Airlift Fleet, the reliance of transporting oversize and 
outsize cargo using foreign aircraft leasing arrangements, the 
unforeseen over-utilization rates of the current fleet of 
inter-theater airlift aircraft, the consistent under-estimation 
of deploying units Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data 
regarding the amount of equipment to support combat operations, 
and the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study does not 
address or characterize the operational risk in meeting 
combatant commander warfighting requirements or timelines.
    The committee notes in regards to intra-theater airlift 
aircraft programs, that the Department of Defense continues to 
struggle with sufficiently, and comprehensively, analyzing and 
defining intra-theater airlift mobility requirements for active 
and reserve components, as well as National Guard units 
supporting both title 10 and title 32, United States Code, 
airlift mobility operations. The committee continues to believe 
that a reduction in the C-130H/J inventory from 395 to 335 
aircraft, a reduction in the inventory of C-27J aircraft from 
78 to 38, and a wholesale inventory reduction by the Army of 42 
C-23 aircraft is unjustified, premature and based on 
insufficient analytics, and moreover, executed for budgetary 
reasons. Furthermore, the committee understands that neither 
the 2006 Mobility Capability Study or the 2010 Mobility 
Capability and Requirements Study did not comprehensively 
analyze all aspects of intra-theater airlift requirements in 
the mission areas of time sensitive-direct support, homeland 
security, Air Force and Army National Guard domestic airlift 
operations in support of contingencies resulting from natural 
disasters, humanitarian crises, emergencies, and combatant 
commander warfighting requirements. Unless the Department has 
analysis that indicates the original requirement for 78 C-27J 
aircraft is no longer valid, the committee supports the 
procurement of 9 C-27J aircraft in fiscal year 2012 and the 
acquisition of C-27Js in fiscal year 2013 and beyond to meet 
the requirements of the National Guard. Without a comprehensive 
analysis of the aforementioned mission areas, it is impossible 
to justify such a decrease in intra-theater airlift 
capabilities.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-652) accompanying the 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009, the committee expressed concerns regarding the C-27J 
program. On April 29, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force 
notified the committee that the program unit cost of the 
aircraft had grown from the April 2008 program baseline by $8.7 
million per aircraft and the estimated operations and 
sustainment costs of the aircraft had grown by $1.5 billion, 
resulting in a significant Nunn-McCurdy breach. An aircraft 
quantity decrease of 78 to 38 total aircraft and an immature 
sustainment plan from the original program of record were 
primary contributing factors to the Nunn-McCurdy breach.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from retiring C-
23 aircraft until one year after the Director of the National 
Guard, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army, the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commander, U.S. Northern 
Command, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the Administrator 
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency submits an intra-
theater airlift study to the congressional defense committees 
that incorporates a comprehensive review of intra-theater 
airlift requirements for both title 10, United States Code, and 
title 32, United States Code operations. Lastly, if the intra-
theater airlift requirements of the study are not sufficiently 
supported by the currently planned intra-theater airlift force 
structure of the Department of Defense, the committee 
encourages the Department to procure the most cost-effective 
and mission-effective airlift aircraft to meet requirements.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $539.1 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $539.1 million, no change to the 
budget request, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $6.1 
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $6.5 billion, an increase of $416.0 
million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in 
division D of this Act.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $17.6 
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $17.6 billion, a decrease of $6.0 
million, for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division 
D of this Act.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2012 contained $5.4 
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 
authorization of $5.1 billion, a decrease of $218.2 million, 
for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D 
of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Innovative titanium manufacturing processes

    The budget request contained $19.9 million for Defense 
Production Act purchases. Of this amount, no funds were 
requested for innovative titanium and titanium alloy 
manufacturing processes.
    The committee notes a high strength-to-weight ratio and 
resistance to corrosion make titanium and titanium alloys a 
critical component of many military platforms. However, the 
conventional, highly energy intensive process for producing 
titanium can be costly and often require long lead times. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to invest in 
innovative titanium and titanium alloy manufacturing processes 
capable of producing high-quality, lower cost titanium 
products.
    The committee recommends $19.9 million, the full amount of 
the request, for the Defense Production Act.

Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal Defense

    The budget request contained $272.6 million for Non-
Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal Defense, and 
$8.5 million for Overseas Contingency Operations for a total of 
$281.1 million.
    The committee notes that of this request, $110.0 million 
will support new procurements and program growth for aviation 
foreign internal defense.
    The committee recommends $231.1 million, a decrease of 
$50.0 million, for Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign 
Internal Defense.

Special operations combatant craft systems

    The budget request contained $6.9 million for special 
operations combatant craft systems.
    The committee notes that U.S. Special Operation Command's 
fleet of Naval Special Warfare Rigid Inflatable Boats (NSW RIB) 
will be drawn down through fiscal year 2017. The committee also 
notes that the Mk V platform will leave service beginning in 
fiscal year 2012, and that the Combatant Craft Medium Mk1 (CCM 
Mk1) platform is projected to fill this important capability 
requirement for maritime special operations forces. However, 
the committee understands that delays in the CCM Mk1 program 
have created a capability gap in combatant craft that would 
potentially result in the number of available combatant craft 
falling below operational requirements, thus requiring a 
bridging strategy until the CCM Mk1 is fully fielded by fiscal 
year 2020. The committee believes this potential gap represents 
a serious national security concern as special operations 
forces are increasingly called upon to operate in a maritime 
environment.
    Therefore the committee recommends $66.9 million, an 
increase of $60.0 million, for special operations combatant 
craft systems to satisfy critical maritime requirements and 
address the capability gap created as the NSW RIB and Mk V 
Special Operations Craft fleets retire.

Special operations communications equipment and tactical radio systems

    The budget request contained $87.5 million for special 
operations communications equipment and electronics. The budget 
request also contained $76.5 million for special operations 
tactical radio systems.
    The committee notes that military operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and elsewhere are increasingly 
distributed and heavily reliant upon a robust communications 
infrastructure and capability. The communications requirements 
for special operations forces continue to grow at a rapid pace, 
reflecting the remote locations from which these forces 
operate, the close work with local security forces, and the 
expansion of the U.S. footprint in key areas throughout the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee recognizes the 
critical importance communications systems will have in 
supporting a successful military strategy and protecting U.S. 
forces.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $150.3 million, an 
increase of $62.8 million, for special operations 
communications equipment and electronics to meet increased 
communications requirements for special operations forces. In 
addition, the committee recommends $101.5 million, an increase 
of $25.0 million for special operations tactical radio systems 
to meet increased tactical communications requirements for 
special operations forces.

Standard missile-3 interceptors

    The budget request contained $565.4 million for procurement 
of Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA).
    The request would support the production of 46 standard 
missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB interceptors for delivery in fiscal 
year 2014. The fiscal year 2011 budget request included plans 
by MDA to procure 66 SM-3 Block IB interceptors in fiscal year 
2012. However, the budget request procures 20 less SM-3 Block 
IB interceptors than previously planned.
    The SM-3 Block IB is a fundamental element of the 
President's phased, adaptive approach (PAA) to missile defense 
in Europe and in other geographic regions. In particular, 
sufficient inventories of SM-3 Block IB interceptors are 
necessary by 2015 to meet the President's planned deployment of 
phase 2 of the European PAA, to include a planned inventory of 
36 Aegis BMD ships and an Aegis Ashore site in Romania. 
However, as noted in the February 2010 Ballistic Missile 
Defense Review ``demand for U.S. BMD assets is likely to exceed 
supply for some years to come.''
    The committee is concerned that the current procurement 
plan for SM-3 interceptors is insufficient to meet the 
deployment plans of the PAA. At the same time, the committee 
seeks to ensure the SM-3 Block IB interceptor is sufficiently 
tested prior to MDA's planned ramp-up in interceptor 
production.
    MDA has delayed the first SM-3 Block IB flight test until 
August 2011 to allow the Aegis BMD program office to resolve 
ongoing technical issues with the divert and attitude control 
system in the interceptor kill vehicle. In March 2010, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the 
``Aegis BMD program is putting the SM-3 Block IB at risk for 
cost growth and schedule delays by planning to begin 
manufacturing in 2010 before its critical technologies have 
been demonstrated in a realistic environment.'' In March 2011, 
GAO reported that MDA agreed to delay the start of SM-3 Block 
IB manufacturing until the Block IB had been successfully 
flight tested, consistent with its recommendations.
    The committee expects that MDA will only allocate 
additional funding for SM-3 Block IB production in fiscal year 
2012 if the first flight test is successful. Should the planned 
SM-3 Block IB flight testing be further delayed or technical 
issues remain unresolved, the committee would consider a 
reallocation of these funds to procure additional SM-3 Block IA 
interceptors.
    The committee recommends $615.4 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, for Aegis ballistic missile defense to procure 
additional SM-3 Block IB interceptors.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

    The budget request contained $833.2 million for procurement 
of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) procurement for 
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
    The budget request would support the procurement of 68 
interceptors, a fifth THAAD battery consisting of 6 launchers, 
and one Tactical Station Group. The fiscal year 2011 budget 
request of $858.9 million included plans by MDA to procure 67 
THAAD interceptors, a fourth THAAD battery consisting of 6 
launchers, and additional launchers for batteries 1-3. However, 
technical issues associated with a safety component in the 
interceptor resulted in a production stop and delayed contract 
award. As a result, the Department of Defense and Full-Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10) 
decreased THAAD procurement by $272.0 million, and only 22 of 
the planned 67 interceptors were procured. Additionally, MDA 
expects to procure fewer launchers in fiscal year 2011 than 
initially planned.
    The THAAD missile defense system is a fundamental element 
of the President's phased, adaptive approach (PAA) to missile 
defense in Europe and a regional missile defense capability 
required by several combatant commanders. However, as noted in 
the February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, ``demand 
for U.S. BMD assets is likely to exceed supply for some years 
to come.'' According to MDA, the Army has requested that each 
THAAD battery comprise 6 launchers per battery rather than the 
currently funded configuration of three launchers per battery. 
Additionally, the total procurement objective of 503 THAAD 
interceptors, which is consistent with the recommendations from 
the 2007 Joint Capability Mix-II study, has been deferred 
beyond the Future Years Defense Program.
    The committee is concerned that the reduction in THAAD 
launcher and interceptor procurement funds in fiscal year 2011 
will create a ripple effect in future years of fewer quantity 
procurements and delayed deliveries. MDA plans to ramp-up THAAD 
interceptor production from 22 in fiscal year 2011, to 68 in 
fiscal year 2012, to near 68 interceptors per year in fiscal 
years 2013-2016. However, the committee understands that this 
increase is limited by a current manufacturing capacity of four 
interceptors per month. A manufacturing capacity of six 
interceptors per month would support MDA's planned production 
increase, but would require additional tooling and test 
equipment.
    The committee recommends $883.2 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 
procurement to procure additional launchers and tooling and 
test equipment to support the Missile Defense Agency's planned 
ramp-up in interceptor production.

Transition of non-lethal weapons

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011, the committee noted the increasing importance of non-
lethal weapons (NLW) use in reducing non-combatant casualties 
and in meeting escalation of force requirements. Additionally, 
the Department has affirmed the need for NLW and the useful 
contributions NLW make to meeting military objectives across 
the operational spectrum.
    Despite the Department's statements supporting the 
development and employment of NLWs, the committee remains 
concerned that the Department has not taken adequate steps to 
transition NLW research and development efforts of the Joint 
Non-Lethal Weapons Program and the individual service NLW 
programs to specific procurement lines within the services. The 
committee believes the inadequate linkage between the 
development of NLW capabilities and the procurement and 
subsequent fielding of NLWs negatively impacts warfighter 
training with and use of NLWs.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the 
Secretaries of the military departments to clearly identify a 
procurement account for NLW line items in their future year 
budget submissions. The committee's oversight of the 
Department's NLW investments is limited due to the lack of 
clear data on NLW budgets and programs, as programs are often 
grouped in multiple categories and are often contained in 
multiple service line items.
    The committee encourages the Department to continue its 
efforts to improve the development and fielding of NLWs, and to 
address the concerns raised in the April 2009 Government 
Accountability Office report 09-344 titled, ``DOD Needs to 
Improve Program Management, Policy, and Testing to Enhance 
Ability to Field Operationally Useful Non-Lethal Weapons.''

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


              Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize appropriations for Procurement 
at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this 
Act.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


         Section 111--Limitation on Retirement of C-23 Aircraft

    This section would limit the Secretary of the Army from 
retiring C-23 aircraft until 1 year after the Director of the 
National Guard, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the 
Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commander, U.S. 
Northern Command, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the 
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
submits an intra-theater airlift study to the congressional 
defense committees that incorporates a comprehensive review of 
intra-theater airlift requirements for both title 10, United 
States Code, and title 32, United States Code, operations. This 
section would also require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the report.

   Section 112--Limitation on Procurement of Stryker Combat Vehicles

    This section would limit the procurement of Stryker Combat 
Vehicles to not more than 100 vehicles unless the Secretary of 
the Army submits a waiver.

Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Airframes for Army UH-
       60M/HH-60M Helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S Helicopters

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter a multiyear procurement contract in accordance with 
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, for up to 5 
years for UH-60M/HH-60M helicopter airframes and, acting as the 
executive agent for the Department of the Navy, for MH-60R/S 
airframes.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


 Section 121--Multiyear Funding for Detail Design and Construction of 
                 LHA Replacement Ship Designated LHA-7

    This section would amend section 111 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) by adding a third year of multiyear authority to 
fully fund the LHA-7. Instead of just fiscal years 2011-12, 
this section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to also 
fund the ship in fiscal year 2013.

 Section 122--Multiyear Funding for Procurement of Arleigh Burke-Class 
                               Destroyers

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into a multiyear procurement of Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyers beginning with the fiscal year 2012 program year. 
The Secretary is required to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees, 30 days prior to contract 
award, containing the findings required by subsection (a) of 
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.

 Section 123--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Mission Avionics and 
             Common Cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S Helicopters

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into one or more multiyear procurement contracts in 
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, 
for up to 5 years for MH-60R/S mission avionics and common 
cockpits.

Section 124--Separate Procurement Line Item for Certain Littoral Combat 
                          Ship Mission Modules

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a separate, dedicated procurement line for each of the 
primary three mission modules for the Littoral Combat Ship 
(LCS) commencing with the budget request for fiscal year 2013. 
Currently, LCS mission modules are in one procurement line in 
Other Procurement, Navy. The three primary mission modules are 
for Surface Warfare, Mine Countermeasures, and Anti-Submarine 
Warfare. Three distinct lines would allow the committee to have 
visibility into the quantity of each type of module and the 
cost of each type of module that is being requested each year. 
This section also would require that any classified mission 
modules or components of the modules be included in the 
classified annex to the budget request.

     Section 125--Life-Cycle Cost-Benefit Analysis on Alternative 
   Maintenance and Sustainability Plans for the Littoral Combat Ship 
                                Program

    This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to 
conduct a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis comparing 
alternative maintenance and sustainability plans for the 
Littoral Combat Ship program in accordance with the Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-94, to be delivered to the 
congressional defense committees with the President's budget 
submission for fiscal year 2013.
    With the commissioning of the USS Freedom and USS 
Independence, the Navy is now in a position to develop a 
maintenance and sustainability concept for these ships, which 
will eventually comprise a large percentage of the fleet.

  Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for F/A-18 Service 
                         Life Extension Program

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise 
made available for fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year 
thereafter for a program to extend the life of F/A-18 aircraft 
beyond 8,600 hours until a date that is 30 days after the date 
on which the Secretary of the Navy submits to the congressional 
defense committees the report under section 114(a)(2) of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (Public Law 111-383).

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


                Section 131--B-1 Bomber Force Structure

    This section would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to 
retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft, but would require the Secretary 
to maintain a combat-coded inventory of 36 B-1 bomber aircraft 
and requisite number of training and testing aircraft to 
support 36 combat-coded aircraft.

     Section 132--Procurement of Advanced Extremely High Frequency 
                               Satellites

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to enter into a fixed price contract to procure two Advanced 
Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites, authorize 
incremental funding of the two AEHF satellites over a period 
not to exceed five years, and establish a limitation on the 
total funds to be obligated and expended for the procurement. 
This section would also require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on 
contract details, cost savings, and plans for reinvesting the 
cost savings into capability improvements for future blocks of 
AEHF satellites.
    The Air Force proposes to procure two AEHF satellites over 
seven years using advanced appropriations authority as part of 
its new Evolutionary Acquisition for Space Efficiency (EASE) 
approach to space acquisition. The Air Force believes a block 
buy of two satellites can drive down costs, improve stability 
in the space industrial base, and allow for investments in 
technology that will lower risk for future programs. However, 
such an approach, if fully funded in a single fiscal year, 
would consume a large portion of the overall space budget and 
negatively impact other mission-critical programs.
    While the committee supports the objectives of EASE, it has 
reservations about its implementation. The committee does not 
support the request for advanced appropriations authority and 
notes that such authority has not been provided to the 
Department in the past and would limit the oversight ability of 
future Congresses. The committee is aware of Air Force plans to 
begin advanced procurement of additional AEHF satellites 
starting in fiscal year 2016, and the committee believes 
incremental funding for one block of satellites should be 
completed before procurement of additional satellites. 
Therefore, the committee recommends incremental funding 
authority over a period not to exceed five years for the 
procurement of the two AEHF satellites.
    The committee expects the Air Force to realize substantial 
savings from the EASE block buy approach, enabled by a fixed-
price contract and fixed requirements. The committee also 
expects the Air Force to reinvest any savings into a capability 
insertion program, which is addressed in another section of the 
report, where research and development activities are 
competitively awarded and new technologies are matured for 
insertion into future blocks of AEHF satellites or other 
military communications satellites. Further, the committee 
believes that the EASE approach must be viewed as a longer-term 
strategy for space acquisition to fully realize the benefits of 
the capability insertion program and to provide longer-term 
stability in the industrial base.
    The committee understands that the Air Force intends to 
apply the EASE approach to the procurement of Space-Based 
Infrared satellites in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The 
committee discourages the use of advanced appropriations in 
future budget requests.

               Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters


       Section 141--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    This section would require the Director, Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Organization to continue to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees on the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund that details the 
monthly commitments, obligations, and expenditures by lines of 
operation.

   Section 142--Contracts for Commercial Imaging Satellite Capacities

    This section would repeal section 127 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383).
    While the committee believes that commercial imagery 
satellites are becoming a key part of the overhead imagery 
architecture, it does not believe Congress should prescribe a 
specific minimum telescope aperture size for commercial imagery 
satellites that the U.S. Government does not own or operate. 
Rather, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
work with commercial imagery providers to communicate its 
capability requirements and allow the commercial providers to 
offer their technical proposals on how best to meet the 
requirements.

  Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Acquisition of 
                      Joint Tactical Radio System

    This section would limit the obligation of funds of the 
Joint Tactical Radio System to not more than 70 percent of the 
requested amount until the Secretary of the Army submits to the 
congressional defense committees written certification that the 
acquisition strategy for full rate production includes full and 
open competition.

 Section 144--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Aviation Foreign 
                        Internal Defense Program

    This section would require a report outlining U.S. Special 
Operations Non-Standard Aviation and Aviation Foreign Internal 
Defense programs and strategies. This section would also 
prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command from obligating more 
than 50 percent of the funds available for fiscal year 2012 for 
procurement of fixed wing non-standard aviation platforms until 
the required report has been submitted to the congressional 
defense committees.

    Section 145--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Commercial 
                         Satellite Procurement

    This section would prohibit the Defense Information Systems 
Agency and the Air Force from obligating more than 20 percent 
of the funds available for fiscal year 2012 for commercial 
satellite procurement until the Secretary of Defense provides 
an independent assessment of the acquisition strategy.

  Section 146--Separate Procurement Line Item for Non-Lethal Weapons 
                                Funding

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a dedicated procurement line item in future defense 
budget submissions for non-lethal weapons (NLW). The committee 
expects that each line item description will identify the 
specific programs for which funds are being requested; provide 
summary justification for the program; identify whether the 
program is a joint or service-specific initiative; and the 
amount of funding provided during the past fiscal year. The 
committee also expects the Department to provide similar 
information for all budget requests for research, development, 
test and evaluation for NLWs.

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

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $75.3 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation.
    The committee recommends $75.6 billion, an increase of 
$255.9 million to the budget request.

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $9.7 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee 
recommends $9.8 billion, an increase of $82.0 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are 
identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Active protection systems technology development

    The committee continues to believe that active protection 
systems (APS) will be a critical component of all future Army 
and Marine Corps combat vehicles including both tracked and 
wheeled platforms, due to the anticipated advances in threats, 
such as missiles, mines, improvised explosive devices, and 
rocket-propelled grenades. The committee notes that section 216 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181), required the Department of Defense to 
conduct a series of tests of available APS systems, to inform 
future APS research or procurement decisions. The committee 
understands that the last of these systems will complete 
testing in the summer of 2011. The committee notes that several 
of the systems tested were developed, in part, using Department 
of Defense research and development funds from the Future 
Combat Systems program. The other systems tested were foreign 
or commercially-developed.
    The committee believes that the investments in sensor and 
interception APS technologies to-date should not be wasted. The 
committee notes that future upgrades of Abrams tanks, Bradley 
Fighting Vehicles, Amphibious Assault Vehicles, as well as new 
vehicles such as the Ground Combat Vehicle, will likely require 
the incorporation of APS technology in order to achieve future 
survivability requirements. For those and other vehicles, the 
committee encourages the leveraging of effective APS 
technologies that were developed with past Department of 
Defense funding, if they meet requirements and are affordable. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a report 
to the congressional defense committees by February 28, 2012, 
that describes the results of the APS testing conducted under 
section 216 of Public Law 110-181. The report should also 
identify government-developed APS technologies that could be 
used to equip combat vehicles and all funds that have been 
allocated in fiscal year 2013 and beyond to further develop and 
field these technologies.

Armed Deployable Helicopter

    The budget request contained $166.1 million in PE 64220A 
for the Armed Deployable Helicopter program. Of this amount, 
$87.4 million was requested for the Kiowa Warrior program and 
$78.7 million was requested for the Armed Scout Helicopter 
(ASH) program.
    The committee notes that the phase II analysis of 
alternatives for the follow-on effort to the terminated Armed 
Reconnaissance Helicopter program has not been completed and 
that this program does not yet have firm requirements or an 
approved acquisition strategy.
    The committee recommends $43.2 million, a decrease of $35.5 
million, in PE 64220A for the ASH program.

Army science and technology management

    The committee recognizes the critical contributions the 
science and technology community makes to providing the 
military with technological capabilities needed to address 
future military challenges. Innovative technology, weapon 
systems, and other equipment are critical for the Nation to 
meet challenges presented by 21st Century asymmetrical 
conflict. The committee believes that Department of Defense 
systems are more integrated now than 10 years ago, but these 
defense systems must maintain a high level of jointness to 
comply with a common operating environment and ensure 
interoperability.
    The committee is concerned that the recent Army decision to 
disestablish the Research Development and Engineering Command 
(RDECOM) on the basis of efficiency neglects the effectiveness 
of the organization to protect longer term science and 
technology (S&T) investments and to ensure integrated and 
interoperable technology systems. Without a unified voice and 
high level advocate on behalf of Army S&T, the committee is 
concerned that the contributions of the S&T community will 
largely be overlooked or ignored.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to deliver a report to the congressional defense committee 
within 150 days after enactment of this Act. This report should 
include an analysis of the efficiencies to be gained through 
the disestablishment of RDECOM compared to the status quo, as 
well as a description of how the new management structure will 
maintain oversight, coordination and integration of Army S&T 
planning and execution.

Bioinformatics initiative

    The committee remains committed to military medical 
research directed to pressing needs validated by the Surgeons 
General. The committee is aware that the Army is developing 
advanced medical information systems in conjunction with 
established university research partners. The committee 
supports the Army's efforts to develop further and expand the 
utility of bioinformatics tools for Department of Defense 
missions.
    Among the goals for Army bioinformatics research are the 
creation of an information hub for all Army medical genomic and 
proteomic partners that will allow collaboration among the 
funded sites to promote sharing of clinical data, bio-specimens 
and research data; the development of a systems biology 
analytical team to identify therapeutic and diagnostic targets 
for both preventative and predictive medicine as well as key 
areas of bio-surveillance and bioterrorism threat detection; a 
fully developed capability that will integrate semantically 
standardized electronic medical record data to generate 
datasets of longitudinal clinical information from diverse 
sources with personally identifiable information removed; the 
capability to support advanced predictive modeling and 
comparative effectiveness research on therapy for diseases of 
military importance; and, bioinformatics and bio-statistical 
support for advanced analysis of the large data sets produced 
by Government and university research partners.

Development of personnel protection equipment for female soldiers

    The budget request contained $19.5 million for soldier 
systems-advanced development. Of this amount, $1.8 million was 
requested for soldier protective equipment efforts to evaluate 
integrated technologies that help expedite individual soldier 
ballistic protection.
    The committee understands that the Army is comprised of 14 
percent women. The committee has heard concerns from a number 
of service women who are deployed in Operation New Dawn (OND) 
and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that due to the physical 
differences between service men and women the current 
interceptor body armor system's design may not be as 
ergonomically effective for the female body type. The female 
soldiers in communication with the committee noted issues of 
restriction and discomfort and suggested this could impact 
their operational effectiveness. The committee notes that the 
current counter-insurgency and dismounted operations in OND and 
OEF place service women in direct combat action with the enemy. 
The committee believes there is merit in conducting an 
evaluation as to whether there is an operational need to tailor 
interceptor body armor (IBA) systems fielded to service women 
specifically for the physical requirements of women.
    The committee understands the Army's Natick Soldier Systems 
Center (NSSC) is currently pursuing several programs to improve 
upon organizational clothing and individual equipment for 
soldiers to include female soldiers. The committee notes the 
NSSC is evaluating the operational benefit for developing a 
separate, female combat uniform for female soldiers to include 
body armor. The committee understands the NSSC is conducting a 
female sizing study for improved outer tactical vests and 
should finalize patterns and deliver prototypes by the 
conclusion of fiscal year 2012. Further, the committee is aware 
that the NSSC has a science and technology program called 
``Improved Geometry and Sizing for Ballistic Plates'' that 
includes efforts to ergonomically improve the current IBA for 
female soldiers. The committee commends the Army for 
acknowledging this issue and encourages the acceleration of 
these efforts to help determine the most effective 
organizational clothing and individual equipment, to include 
body armor and associated components, for military service 
women.
    The committee recommends $19.5 million, the full amount of 
the request, for soldier systems-advanced development.

Ground Combat Vehicle

    The budget request contained $884.4 million in PE 65625A 
for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program.
    The committee understands that in order to capture lessons 
learned from the terminated Future Combat Systems (FCS) program 
the Army established a red team to solicit recommendations that 
would benefit the GCV program. The red team questioned the 
urgency of the need for the GCV within the 7-year schedule. The 
red team reported that the funds that migrated from the 
terminated FCS program were driving the urgency of the 7-year 
schedule, rather than a true capabilities gap. The committee 
understands that the red team concluded that the Army should 
either moderately improve an existing vehicle within the 7-year 
timeframe or spend the time necessary to develop a new vehicle. 
Because the red team's analysis was performed before the Army 
revised its requirements for the current GCV program, the 
committee believes that another red team assessment should be 
conducted to examine whether the changes to the GCV 
requirements are sufficient to place it on a path to success 
within a 7-year timeframe.
    In addition, the committee notes that the Army's initial 
analysis of alternatives compared the GCV design to a broad set 
of alternatives, including the current and upgraded Bradley 
Fighting Vehicle. The analysis was based on combat modeling and 
other quantitative evaluations that found the original GCV 
design to be more advantageous than the alternatives in various 
categories, including lethality and survivability, but it 
presented a high-affordability risk at a cost of over $18.0 
million per vehicle. Consequently, the Army updated its 
analysis and reconsidered the design, making substantial trades 
to achieve a lower cost vehicle. The revised GCV design 
eliminated immature technologies and reduced the estimated cost 
to $10.5 million per vehicle. The Army's updated analysis was 
based in large part on qualitative assessments conducted by 
subject matter experts, rather than the more rigorous 
methodology used in the original analysis. In addition, the 
updated analysis did not compare the new GCV design with the 
original range of alternatives, but only with the unimproved 
Bradley. The committee believes the new design has substantial 
changes that may impact survivability and lethality and should 
be compared to the full range of alternatives and evaluated 
using the same methodology as the original design.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would restrict the use funds fiscal year 2012 until the 
Secretary of the Army provides an updated analysis of 
alternatives to the congressional defense committees that 
includes a quantitative comparison of the current upgraded 
Bradley Fighting Vehicle and other alternatives, against the 
revised GCV design concept. In addition, the committee 
encourages the Army to establish another red team prior to the 
milestone B review to assess the cost, schedule, and technical 
risks of the GCV acquisition strategy.
    The committee recommends $884.4 million, the full amount 
requested in PE 65625A for the GCV program.

Improved Turbine Engine Program

    The budget request contained $62.1 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology.
    The committee supports the Army's Improved Turbine Engine 
Program (ITEP). The investment in ITEP would provide a more 
fuel efficient and powerful engine for the current Black Hawk 
and Apache helicopter fleets. The committee notes that ITEP has 
been identified by the Army to power the next-generation Joint 
Multi-Role aircraft. The committee believes it is important 
that the Army's ITEP acquisition strategy include full and open 
competition. The committee also believes it is important that 
the ITEP program baseline establishes a competitive acquisition 
strategy into Engineering Manufacturing and Development and 
validates operational performance with a flight demonstration 
prior to making a production decision. The committee encourages 
the Secretary of the Army to provide an update to the 
congressional defense committees on the acquisition strategy to 
maintain competition through flight demonstration.
    The committee recommends $62.1 million, the full amount 
requested, in PE 63003A for aviation advanced technology.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

    The budget request contained $251.1 million in PE 64804A 
for Logistics and Engineer Equipment-SDD. Of this amount, 
$172.1 million was requested for the Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicle (JLTV) program. The budget request also contained $79.8 
million in PE 63635M for Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support 
System. Of this amount, $71.8 million was requested for the 
JLTV program.
    The committee understands the JLTV program is expected to 
replace at least one-third of the Army and Marine Corps light 
tactical vehicle fleet beginning in calendar year 2016. The 
committee understands the Army and Marine Corps have taken a 
knowledge-based approach to development of the JLTV by 
investing in the Technology Development phase, which includes a 
focus on early testing of prototypes. The committee understands 
that initial test results indicate that the JLTV program may 
face many operational and technical challenges. The committee 
notes that cost estimates are not yet available but base 
vehicle costs have recently been projected to be at least 
$350,000 per vehicle. Further, the committee understands that 
the JLTV program schedule has been delayed four months and 
notes the milestone B decision has slipped from October 2011 to 
January 2012 in order to refine the program's capabilities 
development document. In addition, the milestone C decision has 
already slipped 17 months as a result of potential increased 
development engineering efforts and is now expected in January 
2016. The committee believes that there must be a clear match 
between the JLTV program's requirements and resources, and 
believes that this will be a challenge given fiscally 
constrained budget environments.
    The committee recommends $147.1 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, in PE 64804A, and $46.8 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, in PE 63635M for the JLTV program.

Medium Extended Air Defense System

    The budget request contained $406.6 million in PE 64869A 
for the Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 
Combined Aggregate Program.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee explains its 
concerns about the MEADS program and includes a provision that 
would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds made 
available for MEADS in fiscal year 2012 until the Secretary of 
Defense either negotiates a multilateral termination of the 
MEADS contract or restructures the MEADS program. The 
limitation would also require the Secretary to submit to the 
congressional defense committees written notification on 
several elements.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense and 
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-
10) provides the program with the full fiscal year 2011 budget 
request of $467.1 million. The committee would support the use 
of these funds, in addition to any funds made available in 
fiscal year 2012, for costs associated with multilateral 
termination of the MEADS contract. Should the Secretary further 
restructure the MEADS program, the committee encourages the 
Secretary to immediately identify and harvest promising MEADS 
technologies, whether U.S. or partner-developed, transition 
those technologies into a Patriot air and missile defense 
system upgrade effort or other viable program of record, and 
adequately resource that approach.
    The committee recommends this reduction on the premise that 
the Department is able to negotiate a multilateral contract 
termination where the U.S. cost share is approximately 58 
percent, consistent with the cost share agreement in the 2004 
MEADS memorandum of understanding, or further restructure the 
program.
    The committee recommends $257.1 million, a decrease of 
$149.5 million, in PE 64869A for the MEADS program.

Nett Warrior

    The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 64827A for 
Soldier Systems development. Of this amount, $25.5 million was 
requested for the Nett Warrior, Increment 1 development 
program.
    The committee understands the Nett Warrior, Increment 1 
program is intended to provide an integrated dismounted leader 
situational awareness system for use during combat operations. 
The system would also provide information and data to the 
dismounted leader, allowing for faster and more accurate 
decisions in the tactical fight, while simultaneously reducing 
fratricide. The committee notes that Increment 1 will use 
technically mature systems, including radios and communication 
software, with program risk limited to the integration of the 
systems. The committee is aware the program is already 3 months 
behind schedule because of integration and weight challenges 
and that the current program requirements are not stable.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $17.9 million, a 
decrease of $7.6 million, in PE 64827A for the Nett Warrior, 
Increment 1 program.

Precision artillery munitions acquisition strategy

    The budget request contained $42.6 million in PE 64814A for 
continued Excalibur development and $13.8 million in PE 64802A 
for continued Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) test and evaluation. 
The budget request also contained $69.1 million for procurement 
of M982 Excalibur artillery munitions but contained no funding 
for the PGK program.
    The committee is aware the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 
conducted a Capability Portfolio Review (CPR) for Precision 
Fires in 2010 which resulted in a significant decrease in the 
quantity of Excalibur rounds in favor of investment in the PGK 
program. The committee recognizes that the Excalibur 1B round, 
scheduled to begin procurement in fiscal year 2012, is more 
expensive than the projected cost of the PGK. However, the 
committee notes that there appears to be significant 
differences in the accuracy performance between the precision 
Excalibur round and the near-precision PGK system in that the 
Excalibur system significantly outperforms the PGK system.
    The committee understands that since the Army concluded its 
CPR, the Excalibur round has continued to be successfully fired 
in Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom against 
multiple targets. The Excalibur program was also recertified as 
essential to national security following a Nunn-McCurdy review 
triggered by the decrease in procurement quantity from the CPR. 
The committee notes the PGK program has encountered continued 
reliability problems with a greater than 3-year delay, 
prompting the Army to delay PGK full-rate production from 
October 2010 to November 2012. The committee is concerned about 
these developments and believes the Army should revisit its mix 
of artillery munitions that could include an increase in the 
requirement for Excalibur precision guided rounds.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $3.8 million, a 
decrease of $10.0 million, in PE 64802A, for the PGK program.

Status of Future Combat Systems contract actions

    The committee notes that the Army has terminated the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) and Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team 
(EIBCT) development activities after spending approximately 
$20.0 billion since 2003. The committee understands that the 
Army has chosen to continue development of multiple legacy FCS 
systems and capabilities within various funding lines, although 
precisely which efforts the Army is continuing is still 
unclear. The committee understands that the termination of 
these two major programs has resulted in extensive contract 
termination negotiations with the prime contractor and its 
subcontractors, which has an associated cost and timeframe. The 
committee believes that in order for Congress to make informed 
funding decisions, the Army must provide an accounting of the 
FCS legacy efforts that it expects to continue, as well as cost 
and schedule projections for closing out the original FCS and 
EIBCT development contracts. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2012 that shows 
all current and projected funding in regards to FCS legacy 
efforts. The report should include the status of all terminated 
and pending contract actions resulting from the termination of 
the FCS and EIBCT programs.

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $18.0 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee 
recommends $18.0 billion, an increase of $51.7 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are 
identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Defense University Research Instrumentation Program

    The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 61103N for 
the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and 
the military services execute a program known as the Defense 
University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP). DURIP 
funds are used for the acquisition of major equipment to 
augment current or develop new research capabilities in support 
of defense relevant research.
    The committee understands that DURIP proposals are 
typically limited to $50,000 to $1.0 million, but that waivers 
may be granted for larger awards. The committee believes that 
these award levels have remained static for more than 15 years, 
without regard to inflation and the increasing costs associated 
with technologically sophisticated equipment. As it is vital 
for cutting edge research to be supported by cutting edge 
instrumentation, the committee encourages the Department and 
the military services to make greater use of waivers to ensure 
that there are adequate resources available to support the 
instrumentation needs of the research community.
    The committee recommends $28.9 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 61103N to provide for additional 
competitive DURIP awards.

Expeditionary Fire Support System Precision Extended Range Munition

    The budget request contained $209.4 million in PE 26623M 
for Marine Corps ground combat support research and 
development. Of this amount, $12.2 million was requested for 
the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) Precision Extended 
Range Munition (PERM) program.
    The committee understands the EFSS PERM program is part of 
the EFSS mortar system program. The EFSS PERM was originally 
intended as a sole source development effort, but is now being 
transitioned to full and open competition for demonstration, 
qualification and production and that a request for proposals 
is expected to be released in fiscal year 2012. The committee 
notes that the EFSS 120mm mortar system could be capable of 
firing the Army Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) 
round, which would offer dismounted infantrymen and Marines 
similar performance to the proposed EFSS PERM round. The 
committee also notes that the PERM round will not achieve low-
rate initial production until fiscal year 2015 and that the 
Army APMI round has already begun fielding. Therefore, the 
committee recommends that the Marine Corps conduct a 
comprehensive Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis prior 
to beginning a new development program for the EFSS PERM round.
    The committee recommends $12.2 million for the EFSS PERM 
program.

Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of Alternatives

    In March 2010, the Secretary of the Navy submitted a report 
to Congress on Naval Surface Fire Support as directed by the 
conference report (H. Rept. 111-288) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This report 
includes comments and recommendations from both the Chief of 
Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In the 
report, the Commandant states that the Marine Corps concurs 
with the findings of the Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of 
Alternatives (AOA). In the report to Congress, however, the 
Secretary of the Navy did not address the results of this AOA.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit the Joint Expeditionary Fires Analysis of 
Alternatives to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 30 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

Naval gunfire support

    The committee is concerned about the Department of the 
Navy's lack of progress in developing Naval Surface Fires in 
support of Marine Corps operating forces. While the committee 
is aware of the Navy's earlier efforts in this area that ended 
in terminated programs, the requirement still exists and the 
Navy's own Fire Support Analysis of Alternatives recommends the 
development of a 5-inch guided projectile. The committee 
expects the establishment of a program to develop this 
capability. In testimony before the committee in recent years, 
the Marine Corps has repeated the immediate need to fill the 
requirement for Naval Surface Fires. The current security 
environment, the truncation of the DDG-1000 program to three 
ships, and the proposed termination of the Expeditionary 
Fighting Vehicle program add urgency to the need for this 
capability. The committee encourages the Navy to address this 
long neglected capability deficit by assessing, through a 
competitive demonstration, the capabilities of existing 
technology to meet the Navy and Marine Corps requirements in 
the fiscal year 2013 timeframe.

Navy remotely piloted demonstration and strike aircraft programs

    The budget request contained $198.3 million in PE 64402N 
for the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) technology 
demonstration program, and $121.2 million in PE 64404N for the 
Future Unmanned Carrier-based Strike System (FUCSS) program.
    The committee supports the Chief of Naval Operations' 
stated desire to investigate the feasibility of sea-basing 
unmanned, low-observable aircraft on aircraft carriers to 
potentially provide intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance 
and limited strike capabilities. However, the committee is 
concerned with the Navy's current execution strategy for both 
programs.
    In fiscal year 2011, the UCAS program experienced an over-
target baseline breach because the original schedule was too 
aggressive and the level of effort required to demonstrate UCAS 
goals was underestimated by Navy officials. Furthermore, the 
UCAS program is not planning to demonstrate an aircraft carrier 
landing until late in fiscal year 2013 and is not planning to 
demonstrate autonomous aerial-refueling until late in fiscal 
year 2014. Both are critical capabilities and necessary 
precursors for informing subsequent FUCSS feasibility and 
development.
    The committee's concerns include: the Navy plans not to 
accomplish a thorough FUCSS analysis of alternatives; the 
desired aircraft fielding date of fiscal year 2018 was randomly 
selected and not derived through a threat-based analysis; and 
the current engineering and technology development strategy is 
considered high-risk by Navy officials to meet the fiscal year 
2018 date. Lastly, the Navy has been unable to articulate to 
the committee the required capabilities and performance 
characteristics of FUCSS, but plans to award multiple 
development contracts in fiscal year 2012 prior to having been 
fully informed by the UCAS program. The committee encourages 
the Secretary of the Navy to develop a fair, open, transparent, 
competitive acquisition strategy that is medium or less risk, 
and incorporates critical knowledge points demonstrated by the 
UCAS program into the FUCSS acquisition strategy.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would limit obligation of fiscal year 2012 FUCSS funds to 
no more than 15 percent until 60 days after the Chairman of the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and 
Acquisition submit certain certifications regarding the 
acquisition of FUCSS to the congressional defense committees. 
This provision would also require the Comptroller General of 
the United States to provide the congressional defense 
committees a briefing, subsequent to a review of the Navy's 
FUCSS acquisition strategy, not later than 90 days after the 
date on which the aforementioned Department of Defense 
officials submit the certain certifications to the 
congressional defense committees.

Over-the-horizon vessel tracking

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
been conducting research to transition existing high frequency 
radar for monitoring the health of coastal waters to over-the-
horizon vessel tracking. This effort tests new technology to 
detect approaching vessels by filling the gap between microwave 
radar, which works in harbors and near shore at close-in-scale, 
and satellites, which track ships at the global ocean scale to 
strengthen maritime domain awareness. The committee encourages 
the Department to continue research into this area and 
integrate promising technology and concepts into broader 
maritime domain awareness initiatives.

Study on LHD Class steam plants and propulsion systems

    The committee is concerned about management of future 
lifecycle costs of WASP-class amphibious assault ships (LHD). 
The first seven ships of the LHD-class were constructed using 
steam propulsion, which requires extensive crew training to 
safely operate and is more expensive to repair than gas turbine 
or diesel propulsion. Further, LHD 1-7 steam propulsion plants 
are inefficient at higher speeds, exacerbating well known Navy 
fossil fuel dependence.
    The committee notes that the Military Sealift Command has 
installed machinery monitoring technologies in diesel-powered 
ships to improve safety and reduce total ownership cost, and 
that the technology is available for real-time monitoring of 
steam plant systems. To this end, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study that examines the 
feasibility of using a software-based monitoring system that 
would provide LHD 1-7 steam plant operators real-time machinery 
monitoring diagnostic and prognostic, predictive analytics for 
mission critical systems, including main propulsion steam 
turbines, electrical power generators, and auxiliary systems. 
This study, to be submitted within 180 days of enactment, 
should focus on options for monitoring systems that could 
include:
          (1) Providing plant operators early warning or 
        prognostic recognition of impending failures and 
        recommended remedial actions;
          (2) Providing real-time recommended operator actions 
        to improve plant efficiency;
          (3) Reducing fuel consumption;
          (4) Minimizing component and sensor wear to enable 
        LHD 1-7 to meet full design service life; and
          (5) Enabling more efficient maintenance planning by 
        automatic generation of maintenance work orders, and 
        immediate delivery of equipment health information to 
        both shipboard crews and shore-side support staff.

         Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $27.7 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee 
recommends $27.7 billion, an increase of $12.0 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program 
are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Air Force advanced materials research

    The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63112F for 
the development of advanced materials for weapon systems.
    Congress has historically supported the Metals 
Affordability Initiative (MAI) with budgetary increases to 
ensure adequate funding is provided to this important 
initiative, a peer review process to provide science and 
technology funding for promising aerospace projects in the Air 
Force advanced materials program. MAI, a joint government and 
industry consortium, uses a process to improve the 
manufacturing of specialty metals and consequently provides the 
warfighter with metals of improved strength and durability, 
often at a reduced cost.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has increased the 
level of funding it has dedicated to the cost-sharing 
partnership with the consortium and encourages the Air Force to 
continue budgeting for this initiative. The committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to expand the scope of 
this initiative beyond the Air Force to fully leverage the 
collaborative technology development and transition 
opportunities available to better meet the requirements for 
specialty metals across the Department.
    The committee recommends $49.7 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 63112F to support the Metals Affordability 
Initiative.

Air Force missile field monitoring technology

    In October 2010, an incident occurred at a Minuteman-III 
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) missile field at F.E. 
Warren Air Force Base whereby for approximately one hour, the 
ability of the Air Force to monitor the status of one 
squadron's ICBMs was interrupted. In subsequent briefings to 
the committee, the Air Force described its corrective measures 
as being largely based on human-in-the-loop checklists and 
procedure improvements. The committee believes the Air Force 
should also consider improvements that leverage modern 
technology, including modern automated systems and remote 
sensing technologies, to monitor the status of Air Force ICBMs.
    The committee therefore directs the commander of Air Force 
Global Strike Command to provide a briefing by September 6, 
2011, to the congressional defense committees on the current 
capabilities to monitor the status of Air Force ICBMs; a 
summary of potential technologies to improve the status 
monitoring of ICBMs; the benefits, risks, technical maturity 
costs, and schedules to implement such technologies; and any 
recommendations for specific technologies the Air Force plans 
to pursue.

Army and Air Force test, evaluation, range, and facility support

    The budget request contained $270.9 million in PE 65601A 
for Army test range and facility support. The budget request 
also contained $654.4 million in PE 65807F for Air Force test 
and evaluation support.
    The committee notes that the Weapon Systems Acquisition 
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) requires the Department 
of Defense to rebuild its systems engineering and developmental 
testing organizations to ensure that design problems are 
understood and addressed early in the acquisition process. The 
committee is concerned that the budget request would make deep 
cuts to the test and evaluation workforce and undermines the 
requirement in Public Law 111-23.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $370.9 million, an 
increase of $100.0 million, in PE 65601A for Army test range 
and facility support. The committee also recommends $763.4 
million, an increase of $109.0 million, in PE 65807F for Air 
Force test and evaluation support.

Common propulsion technology development

    The budget request contained $67.2 million in PE 63851F for 
the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Demonstration/
Validation program. Of this amount, $40.1 million was requested 
for common propulsion technology development.
    The committee remains concerned about the health and long-
term viability of the solid rocket motor industrial base. The 
committee notes that the demand for large solid rocket motors 
(SRMs) has decreased significantly, particularly with the 
decision by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
to retire the Space Shuttle and terminate the Constellation 
program. The Air Force Minuteman III ICBM program and Navy 
Trident II/D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile program rely 
on this industrial base and are likely to bear the increasing 
cost of SRMs as demand decreases and infrastructure costs get 
passed to the Department of Defense (DOD).
    The committee believes the sustainment of the SRM 
industrial base is a national challenge that spans multiple 
departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. Elsewhere in 
this Act, the committee includes a provision that recommends 
the President develop a national rocket propulsion strategy.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee stated that ``the Department should invest in a 
substantive defense-wide research and development (R&D) 
activity'' for SRMs that could be leveraged for future 
strategic strike, missile defense, and space launch systems. In 
a March 2011 report to Congress on the SRM industrial base 
sustainment and implementation plan, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that 
the Department will consider ``expanding current research and 
development (R&D) programs'' whose intent would be for ``the 
Air Force and Navy to pursue development and maturation of 
common technologies for future strategic missile system designs 
. . . [and] maintaining design and engineering expertise in the 
large-SRM industry.'' The report further states that the 
Department would recommend starting such a program no later 
than 2014. The committee supports such an expanded SRM research 
and development program. The committee is concerned about 
further erosion of the SRM industrial base and encourages the 
Department to immediately start a competitive R&D program 
rather than wait until 2014.
    The committee therefore recommends $87.2 million, an 
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 63851F for common propulsion 
technology development.

Deep Space Climate Observatory Launch Service

    The budget request contained $158.1 million in PE 65860F 
for the Rocket System Launch Program. Of this amount, $134.5 
million was requested for launch support services for the Deep 
Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) mission.
    The committee understands the Air Force would provide 
launch services for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) DSCOVR mission upon its refurbishment in 
fiscal year 2014. The committee is also aware of commercial 
data purchase solutions that could meet the Government's space 
weather data needs by fiscal year 2014 and preclude the need 
for the Air Force to fund launch services. The committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to work with the NOAA to 
consider a competitively acquired commercial solution.
    The committee recommends $33.6 million, a decrease of 
$124.5 million, in PE 65860F for launch support services for 
the DSCOVR mission.

Electronic, Scheduling and Dissemination Upgrade

    The committee is aware that the current electronic, 
scheduling and dissemination (ESD) system for the Air Force 
Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) faces several sustainment 
challenges. The ESD system allows satellite operators at 40 
geographically separated locations to request contact time on 
16 shared AFSCN antennas and allows schedulers to de-conflict 
overlapping requests to create and publish a schedule. The ESD 
system must accommodate some 1,300 different vehicle 
configurations for over 160 supported satellites to manage an 
average 410 satellite contacts per day, to include up to 120 
real-time mission changes per day. The ESD hardware is largely 
commercial-off-the-shelf technology based on 1980's era 
technology including the disk operating system and 286-
equivalent computers. For example, a majority of these items 
are not available through either government supply systems or 
commercial vendors, as the components and software are 
technologically obsolete. The committee understands, based on 
information provided by the Air Force, that the current ESD 
system will only be fully sustainable through 2014. The 
committee has learned from the Air Force that sufficient 
funding is available to continue development of the ESD upgrade 
through fiscal year 2011 and that the Air Force will seek 
approval of a $20.7 million reprogramming request in fiscal 
year 2011 to continue development though fiscal year 2012.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
submit a report that details the remaining ESD program costs 
and associated fiscal year funding profile as well as an 
updated integrated master schedule to the congressional defense 
committees by December 1, 2011.

F-35 aircraft

    The budget request contained $2.7 billion in PEs 64800F, 
64800N, and 64800M for development of the F-35 aircraft, but 
contained no funds for development of a competitive F-35 
propulsion system. The F-35 is also known as the Joint Strike 
Fighter (JSF).
    The competitive F-35 propulsion system program has been 
developing the F136 engine, which would have provided a 
competitive alternative to the currently-planned F135 engine. 
For the past 5 years, the committee recommended increases for 
the F-35 competitive propulsion system, and notes funds have 
been appropriated by Congress for this purpose through the 
first half of fiscal year 2011. Despite section 213 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), which required the Secretary of Defense to 
obligate and expend sufficient annual amounts for the continued 
development and procurement of a competitive propulsion system 
for the F-35, the committee is disappointed that the Department 
of Defense (DOD) has, for the sixth consecutive year, chosen 
not to comply with both the spirit and intent of this law, by 
opting not to include funds for this purpose in the budget 
request. According to the Department of Defense, the life-cycle 
cost of the F-35 engine program is $110.0 billion. A January 
10, 2011, report by the Congressional Research Service notes 
that there has never been a separate engine competition for F-
35 engines. The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
terminated the F136 contract on April 25, 2011.
    On February 23, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
submitted to the committee an update of the 2007 Department of 
Defense report, ``Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine 
Acquisition and Independent Cost Analysis'' for the competitive 
engine program, which noted that an investment of $2.9 billion 
over 6 years in additional cost would be required to finish 
F136 engine development and to conduct directed buys to prepare 
the F136 for competitive procurement of F-35 engines in 2017. 
This report also projected that long-term costs for either a 
one-engine or two-engine competitive acquisition strategy would 
be the same, on a net present value basis. Last September, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that this 
estimate was based on two key assumptions made by the 
Department of Defense in developing the $2.9 billion funding 
projection that have significant impact on the estimated amount 
of upfront investment needed. These assumptions were: (1) four 
years of noncompetitive procurements of both engines would be 
needed to allow the alternate engine contractor sufficient time 
to gain production experience and complete developmental 
qualification of the engine, and (2) the Government would need 
to fund quality and reliability improvements for engine 
components. GAO notes that past studies and historical data it 
examined indicate that it may take less than 4 years of 
noncompetitive procurements and that competition may obviate 
the need for the Government to fund component improvement 
programs. GAO concludes that if these conditions hold true for 
the alternate engine, the funding projection for the alternate 
engine could be lower than DOD's projection.
    The committee notes that reports on the F-35 alternate 
engine program completed in 2007 by the Institute for Defense 
Analyses, GAO, and the Department of Defense all agree that 
non-financial benefits of a competitive engine program include 
improved contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial 
base, improved operational readiness, better engine 
performance, and technological innovation. The committee 
further notes that the 2007 study by the Institute for Defense 
Analyses on the JSF engine cost analysis noted that, ``In 2035, 
the JSF would comprise 95 percent of the fighter attack force 
structure.'' Among other reasons, the committee remains 
concerned about proceeding with a $110.0 billion, sole-source 
engine program for that percentage of the Department of 
Defense's future tactical fighter fleets.
    The committee is also concerned about the operational risk 
of having a one engine program for the F-35 fleet, and notes 
that a former F-35 Program Executive Officer has stated, ``The 
Pentagon needs to carefully consider the operational risk of 
having just one engine for the F-35 fighter jet. Competition 
could bring faster technology development and lower costs. A 
single engine could be worrisome if an engine problem ever 
grounded the fighters. In the past, having a variety of 
fighters meant the Pentagon could use other planes to offset 
any groundings, like an 11-month engine-related halt in 
Harriers in 2000. I simply think that we've focused too much on 
the discussion about cost benefit and not the operational risk 
benefit.''
    The committee also notes that section 3, titled ``Scope of 
Work'', of the 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by 
all JSF partner nation senior defense officials regarding the 
production, sustainment, and follow-on development of the Joint 
Strike Fighter states that ``the production work will include, 
but will not be limited to, the following: Production of the 
JSF air vehicle, including propulsion systems, both F135 and 
F136.'' The committee understands that this MOU is still 
current.
    The committee further notes that, ``The Final Report of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel'' published on 
July 29, 2010, states: ``History has shown that the only 
reliable source of price reduction through the life of a 
program is competition between dual sources.'' Consistent with 
that view, the committee strongly supports the December 2010 
announcement by the Department of Defense that the Littoral 
Combat Ship (LCS) program would award a contract to 2 
contractors for 10 ships each. The budget request contained 
$1.9 billion through fiscal year 2016 for continued LCS 
development. Like the LCS program, the F-35 competitive engine 
program would also require development funding in the Future 
Years Defense Program, and the committee is perplexed why the 
Department would implement a dual-source acquisition strategy 
for the LCS program and not for the F-35 competitive engine 
program.
    The committee believes that the F-35 competitive engine 
program has its roots in the F-16 alternate engine program 
which began in the early 1980s. Often called, ``The Great 
Engine War'' the committee notes that Robert Drewes, in his 
1987 book, ``The Air Force and The Great Engine War,'' wrote: 
``Competition is the only sure way to get the best effort. 
Competition did yield . . . some substantial initial benefits 
to the Air Force . . . engine improvements [were offered] to 
the Air Force earlier than the Air Force had been led to expect 
without the competition. Furthermore, unit prices were lower 
than . . . had previously been offer[ed]. Since the initial 
split buy in February 1984, competition further induced [the 
contractor] to grant even more concessions to the Air Force. 
Warranty prices have been reduced significantly and 
arrangements with the European Participating Governments have 
improved.''
    The committee believes it is too early to have terminated 
the F136 development contract because it was 2 years after 
initial operational capability for the F-15 that problems first 
became apparent with the F-15 and F-16 F100 engine that 
resulted in the first alternate engine program, an equivalent 
point in time for the F-35, 7 years from now. The F-35 primary 
engine has 1,000 flight hours. The Department of Defense 
standard to achieve maturity on an engine requires 200,000 
flight hours. In response to section 211 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), on March 15, 2007, the GAO presented to the 
committee, ``Analysis of Costs for the Joint Strike Fighter 
Program,'' which stated that experience suggests that 
competition between the F135 and F136 can generate savings and 
benefits up to 20 percent if:
          (1) Contractors are incentivized to achieve more 
        aggressive production learning curves;
          (2) Annual completion for procurement is kept in 
        place over an extended period;
          (3) Contractors produce more reliable engine, 
        resulting in lower maintenance costs; and
          (4) Contractors invest additional corporate money to 
        remain competitive.
    For these reasons, the committee remains steadfast in its 
belief that continuing the F-35 competitive propulsion system 
program would be the right course of action for the F-35 
propulsion system.
    The committee understands that the F136 contractor intends 
to provide its own funds to continue F136 development for 
fiscal year 2012. Accordingly, elsewhere in this title, the 
committee includes a provision that would preserve and store 
property related to the F136 contract, and would ensure that 
the Secretary of Defense, at no cost to the Federal Government, 
provides support and allows for the use of such property by the 
contractor under a contract to conduct research, development, 
test, and evaluation of the F136 engine, if such activities are 
self-funded by the contractor.

F-35 alternative ejection seat

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 64706F for 
Life Support Systems. Of this amount, no funding was requested 
for an F-35A alternative ejection seat.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
has benefited from a common family of ejection seats in its 
tactical aircraft fleet since the late 1970s. The committee 
understands that preliminary internal Air Force studies have 
determined that the potential exists for significant cost 
savings and increased pilot safety with an alternative ejection 
seat system for the F-35A. The committee also notes that the 
Department of Commerce has expressed concern about risks to 
national security if the United States becomes totally reliant 
on foreign sources for ejection seat technology. Accordingly, 
the committee believes the Department of Defense should be 
particularly mindful of these issues in evaluating competitive 
options for F-35A ejection seat program.
    The committee understands that the Department of the Air 
Force is conducting a business-case analysis to determine 
whether an alternative F-35A ejection seat offers substantial 
F-35A life-cycle cost savings and commonality benefits to the 
Department of the Air Force tactical fighter fleets, while also 
considering the impacts on the Department of the Navy F-35B and 
F-35C programs as well as the F-35 program's international 
partners. The committee believes that the F-35 program's 
ejection seat requirement should be reviewed in the context of 
this analysis. If a decision to change the F-35A's ejection 
seat requirement is warranted by the business-case analysis, 
the committee urges the qualification and integration of an 
alternative ejection seat in the F-35A.
    The committee recommends $11.2 million in PE 64706F for 
Life Support Systems.

Hosted payloads

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Air Force, to ``conduct a study of 
the options for hosting defense payloads on commercial 
satellites'' which would ``identify feasible options that offer 
potential savings and the specific actions required to take 
advantage of these opportunities,'' and submit the report by 
March 1, 2011. The committee is disappointed that it has not 
yet received the report and that the study has only recently 
begun.
    The committee notes that the January 2011 National Security 
Space Strategy concluded that ``hosting payloads on a mix of 
platforms in various orbits'' can help achieve greater 
resiliency in space. The committee remains concerned that the 
Department of Defense has not devoted adequate attention and 
focus on evaluating opportunities for hosting defense payloads 
on commercial satellites. Such an approach may provide 
augmentation or gap-filler capabilities for the warfighter, and 
may be available sooner and at a lower cost than current major 
space acquisition programs.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to expedite 
the completion of this report and submit it to the 
congressional defense committees in a timely manner. The 
committee continues to support opportunities to host defense 
payloads on commercial satellites, including communications, 
space situational awareness, space weather, and classified 
payloads. Specifically, the committee looks forward to 
assessing potential cost savings, identifying funding 
opportunities for hosted payloads, and identifying legal or 
regulatory barriers that may hamper the government's 
flexibility to take advantage of hosted payload opportunities.

KC-46A aerial refueling aircraft program

    The budget request contained $877.1 million in PE 65221F 
for the next generation aerial refueling aircraft, KC-46A.
    The committee supports the attributes and benefits 
regarding the KC-46A competition and acknowledges that the 
source-selection process was conducted fairly amongst all 
competitors. According to Department of Defense acquisition 
officials, the competition resulted in at least a twenty 
percent savings for the unit cost of the aircraft and a savings 
of $3.0 to $4.0 billion as compared to the source-selection 
competition held for the tanker in 2008.
    The committee plans to closely monitor the KC-46A 
engineering, manufacturing and development program to ensure 
that the taxpayer dollars are wisely invested and that the 
platform will result in a capability that enhances the 
warfighter's global reach capabilities. The committee also 
understands that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD, AT&L) will conduct 
quarterly reviews of the Air Force's KC-46A program.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would require the Comptroller General of the United States 
to conduct an annual review of the KC-46A program and to 
provide the results to the congressional defense committees 
beginning on March 1, 2012. Furthermore, the committee directs 
USD, AT&L to provide to the congressional defense committees 
the results of each quarterly review of the KC-46A program 
within 30 days after the date of completion of each review. At 
each quarterly review briefing, USD, AT&L is directed to 
provide notice of a major engineering, design, capability or 
configuration change to the KC-46A, and cost for that change 
when it becomes known, that is different from the baseline 
aircraft offered in the final proposal related to Air Force 
contract #FA8625-11-C600.
    The committee recommends $849.9 million, a decrease of 
$27.2 million, in PE 65221F for the next generation aerial 
refueling aircraft because that funding is in excess to the 
$818.0 million obligation authority limited by USD, AT&L for 
the program for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

Lead-free electronic components

    The committee understands that international efforts to 
produce lead-free electronic components may lead to the 
widespread use of tin-based solder products and finishes in 
commercial electronic components. The committee further 
understands that the Secretary of the Air Force may use lead-
free electronic components in the future through purchases of 
commercial-off-the-shelf items. The committee notes, however, 
that lead-free or tin-based solder products and finishes may 
result in an increased failure rate for military systems due to 
weaker solder finishes and tin whiskers. The committee believes 
that the Air Force needs to establish protocols to assess the 
risk and reliability of such components, including 
determination of potential failure mechanisms, development of 
test methodologies and models, and establishing reliability 
rates. The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to 
move rapidly to develop protocols for lead-free electronic 
components.

Military satellite communications technology development

    The budget request contained $421.7 million in PE 63430F 
for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite 
program. Of this amount, $142.2 million was requested for 
Evolved AEHF military satellite communications (MILSATCOM).
    The budget request for Evolved AEHF MILSATCOM reflected the 
cost savings the Air Force expects to achieve in fiscal year 
2012 as a result of its new Evolutionary Acquisition for Space 
Efficiency (EASE) approach to space acquisition. The EASE 
approach reinvests cost savings from satellite block buys into 
a steady research and development program called the 
``capability and affordability insertion program'' (CAIP). Such 
an approach is envisioned to lower the cost and risk of follow-
on systems, by placing the risk of new technology development 
and capability improvements outside of the critical path for 
satellite procurement until such technologies and capabilities 
are sufficiently mature for insertion into future satellite 
block upgrades.
    While the committee supports CAIP, it is concerned that 
CAIP funds contained in the larger AEHF program element (PE) 
may be more susceptible to use as an offset source within the 
AEHF program than funds contained in a separate PE. The 
committee is also concerned that CAIP funds may be directed to 
specific contractors should they remain in a PE associated with 
a legacy satellite program and its associated contractors.
    The committee believes that CAIP funds should be applied to 
a broad range of MILSATCOM technology development activities 
and competitively awarded. The committee also expects the Air 
Force to develop a spend plan for the funds, identify 
objectives for each activity, and establish a process for 
determining how each activity might transition to an existing 
program or be established as a new program, as would be 
required in a provision included elsewhere in this Act.
    The committee therefore recommends the transfer of $142.2 
million from PE 63430F for the Advanced Extremely High 
Frequency satellite program to PE 64436F for next-generation 
MILSATCOM technology development.
    The committee recommends $279.5 million, a decrease of 
$142.2 million, in PE 63430F for the AEHF satellite program.

Next generation long-range strike bomber program

    The committee supports the decision to restart the 
development of a new bomber aircraft. The committee 
acknowledges that the current fleet of bomber aircraft are 
still effective and relevant in meeting the combatant 
commanders' warfighting requirements but believes that the 
long-range strike requirements have been sufficiently analyzed 
on numerous occasions over the last 18 years against forecasted 
threats and that a recapitalization program must begin.
    The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to 
monitor critical aspects of the new bomber program and to keep 
the committee informed of the program's progress in a timely 
manner. The committee remains concerned with the workload being 
levied on the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and 
will monitor the acquisition governance structure to ensure 
that AFRCO is staffed with acquisition officials that represent 
an appropriate and sufficient cross-section of recent 
operational experience, major defense acquisition program 
management, requirements development, technology integration, 
and cost estimation to effectively execute the bomber program.
    The committee remains concerned that the Secretary of the 
Air Force has not performed a comprehensive life-cycle cost 
analysis comparing the development of one bomber platform, 
integrating all long-range strike capabilities, to a ``family 
of long-range strike systems'' to determine the affordability 
of the Department of Defense's long-range strike portfolio 
strategy.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would require the Secretary of Defense to designate the 
main propulsion system of the bomber aircraft as a major 
subprogram, as well as require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to develop a competitive acquisition strategy for the 
propulsion system.

Operationally responsive space

    The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) established the 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office to respond to the 
needs of the joint force commander and to build an enabling 
infrastructure to support the rapid deployment of space 
capabilities. ORS capabilities have the potential to reduce the 
fragility of the space architecture through rapid 
reconstitution, provide augmentation or surge capabilities, and 
offer a pathway for demonstrating new technology or operational 
concepts. While ORS satellites would not have the performance 
of those from larger, traditional space acquisition programs, 
they are envisioned to be a quicker, lower cost way to get 
``good enough'' capabilities on-orbit.
    The committee is aware of two key ORS launches: ORS-1 is a 
small electro-optical and infrared satellite developed in 
response to a U.S. Central Command urgent need and planned for 
launch in May 2011; and TacSat-4 is planned for launch in July 
2011. The committee understands the ORS Office is also pursuing 
a rapid response space works capability, as well as modular 
plug-and-play mission kits to enable a reconfigurable 
architecture and ultimately to demonstrate end-to-end solutions 
to support the U.S. Strategic Command vision of achieving a 6-
day call up to launch.
    The committee continues to support these ORS activities. 
However, the committee notes that funding for the ORS program 
has decreased over the past few fiscal years, from $133.8 
million in fiscal year 2010, to $94.0 million in fiscal year 
2011, to $86.5 million requested in fiscal year 2012. The 
committee believes a steady level of effort and funds are 
necessary to advance ORS capabilities so they become 
sufficiently mature to provide rapid support to the warfighter.

Space-Based Infrared System

    The budget request contained $621.6 million in PE 64441F 
for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), but contained no 
funds for data exploitation.
    Two SBIRS highly elliptical orbit satellites are currently 
on orbit and the first SBIR geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) 
satellite is expected to launch in May 2011, followed by a 
second GEO satellite launch in April 2012. Each satellite 
carries a scanning and staring sensor that provides missile 
warning, and supports missile defense, technical intelligence, 
and battlespace awareness missions.
    The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not 
provided funds for the exploitation of SBIRS data, particularly 
the staring sensor, and notes previous congressional efforts to 
include funds for such purpose.
    The committee believes the Air Force and the broader 
defense and intelligence communities have not fully utilized 
the overhead persistent infrared (OPIR) data available from 
SBIRS. In particular, the committee believes SBIRS data could 
be further exploited to provide increased support to missile 
defense, and encourages the Missile Defense Agency to work with 
the Air Force and other OPIR experts, such as Sandia National 
Laboratory, to explore the extent to which SBIRS can provide 
some of the capability planned for the Precision Tracking Space 
System (PTSS). The committee also believes SBIRS data could be 
further exploited to provide new technical intelligence and 
battlespace awareness capabilities.
    The committee understands that a joint OPIR ground effort 
has been established to focus on the longer-term needs of the 
OPIR community. The committee anticipates such effort will 
shape future budget requests for data exploitation capabilities 
from SBIRS and other OPIR sensors.
    The committee recommends $641.6 million, an increase of 
$20.0 million, in PE 64441F, to be competitively awarded by the 
Secretary of the Air Force for the development of SBIRS data 
exploitation capabilities.

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


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $19.8 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee 
recommends $19.9 billion, an increase of $109.2 million to the 
budget request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide 
program are identified in division D of this Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


3-D advanced integrated circuit capabilities

    The committee is concerned about the domestic capacity to 
produce 3-D advanced integrated circuits in the United States. 
The committee is aware that much of the commercial capacity has 
been moved offshore, making the global supplier base for 
defense microelectronics increasingly insecure and susceptible 
to compromise through counterfeit or maliciously-altered 
circuits.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a comprehensive assessment regarding 3-D integrated 
circuits manufacturing capacity to serve the U.S. military and 
other national security interests and to provide a report on 
the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act. The report should include the 
following:
          (1) An assessment of the military requirements for 3-
        D integrated circuits in future microelectronic systems 
        as a critical enabling technology for military 
        applications;
          (2) An assessment of the current domestic commercial 
        capability to securely develop and manufacture 3-D 
        integrated circuits for use in military systems and;
          (3) An assessment of the feasibility, as well as 
        planning and design requirements, for the development 
        of a domestic manufacturing capability for 3-D 
        integrated circuits at a number of locations within the 
        United States, including Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Airborne Infrared

    The budget request contained $46.9 million in PE 64884C for 
the Airborne Infrared (ABIR) program for the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA).
    According to MDA budget materials, ABIR is planned to 
provide early precision tracking of ballistic missiles, 
discrimination, and fire control quality data to enable early 
intercepts. ABIR is also expected to increase the missile raid 
handling capacity of the ballistic missile defense system. The 
committee understands that ABIR technical feasibility has been 
demonstrated in several recent flight tests and experiments.
    The committee is aware, based on an April 2011 briefing by 
Joint Staff officials on the Joint Capabilities Mix-III (JCM-
III) study, that ABIR provides a significant contribution to 
the ballistic missile defense system. The JCM-III study further 
recommended accelerating ABIR capability development.
    The committee understands that no less than 12 Government 
and contractor organizations participate in the ABIR program, 
including several Government research laboratories. The 
committee further understands that MDA issued a request for 
information in fiscal year 2011 and plans to issue a request 
for proposals in fiscal year 2012 for ABIR technology 
development.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $66.9 million, an 
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64884C, to be allocated at the 
discretion of the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to 
accelerate ABIR development and experimentation.

Basic research international cooperation

    The committee recognizes the importance of basic research 
to the Department of Defense and is encouraged by the 
Department's continued emphasis in supporting funding increases 
in the budget request. Basic research is a key long-term 
strategic investment by the Department that has a track record 
of supporting the development of important technological 
capabilities, many of which were not clearly foreseen at the 
time. The committee is encouraged that basic research 
investments continue to grow at a rate of 2 percent above 
inflation, when most other areas of the President's budget 
request are flat or declining.
    The committee is also aware that the current basic research 
strategic plan places significant emphasis on cyber 
capabilities, including enabling capabilities such as quantum 
information science. The committee encourages the Department to 
utilize the basic research program to increase cooperation and 
collaboration with our foreign allies and partners in the area 
of cyber security. The committee believes that this could serve 
as an important component in supporting the development of 
critical future capabilities for our Armed Forces, as well as 
boosting the capacity of our foreign partners.

Capabilities to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief

    The committee recognizes the value that Department of 
Defense science and technology (S&T) efforts provide in 
addressing the full range of military missions. S&T investments 
are critical in providing technological options to address 
known requirements, as well as hedge against uncertainty. The 
committee notes that the preponderance of S&T investments are 
in traditional areas like weapons systems, platforms, and 
sensors. The committee is concerned that the current investment 
strategy leaves gaps in areas of unconventional or irregular 
threats.
    Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) 
represents one mission area that has not been a traditional 
focus of S&T investment. The committee notes that HA/DR 
missions are particularly prominent as part of a broader 
strategy of international engagement and show U.S. commitment 
to the global commons. Recent examples include Operation 
Unified Response in which the U.S. provided emergency disaster 
relief in the wake of the earthquake in the Republic of Haiti 
in 2010 and providing recent support following the earthquake 
and tsunami in Japan in 2011.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should develop a strategy to focus more of its S&T investments 
on HA/DR. The committee is aware of existing work that could be 
accelerated and transitioned more widely, such as the 
Sustainable Technologies Accelerated Research Transformative 
Innovation for Development and Emergency Support initiative. 
The committee also recognizes that there are other areas where 
the Department of Defense has not traditionally focused many 
resources, such as the development of thermostable vaccines, 
where there are opportunities to collaborate with outside 
entities that offer expertise in developing global health 
technologies that could be pursued and better leveraged. The 
committee believes that the Department's increasing role in HA/
DR missions will require greater technological options than are 
currently available and should be addressed through S&T 
development opportunities.

Composite technology for use in missile defense interceptors

    The committee notes efforts by the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to develop and test carbon fiber composite materials for 
use in missile defense interceptors to improve performance and 
withstand the operational environment experienced by such 
interceptors.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
continue efforts to increase the performance of high thermally 
conductive composites, such as carbon fiber composites, to 
improve the performance of missile defense interceptors.

Conventional prompt global strike

    The budget request contained $204.8 million in PE 64165D8Z 
for conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capability 
development. The request would fund hypersonic boost-glide 
experiments, concept development and demonstration, alternate 
payload development and test, test-range development, and 
studies and analysis.
    The committee notes that the first hypersonic technology 
vehicle (HTV-2) flight test in April 2010 was unsuccessful. 
According to the Department of Defense, a second HTV-2 flight 
test is planned for August 2011 and the first flight test of an 
alternative design, the advanced hypersonic weapon (AHW), is 
planned for fiscal year 2012. The committee understands that 
hypersonic technology is cutting-edge. The committee further 
recognizes that designing a vehicle to glide through the 
Earth's atmosphere at Mach 20, and developing the associated 
thermal management and guidance and control technology, is a 
significant scientific and engineering challenge.
    While the committee values such innovation and scientific 
discovery, it is also concerned about pursuing a weaponized 
missile system, or any material development decision, before 
demonstrating that the technology is feasible. The committee 
believes a critical design review in fiscal year 2012 for an 
operational demonstration of a conventional strike missile 
(CSM) is premature.
    The committee also questions the Department's apparent 
focus on one specific system solution. As stated in the 
President's February 2, 2011, report to Congress on 
conventional prompt global strike, in response to Condition 6 
of the New START Treaty resolution of ratification, 
``preliminary discussions [regarding any specific acquisition 
programs for CPGS weapon systems] . . . is informed by one 
plausible configuration: the Air Force CSM utilizing the boost-
glide approach.'' The committee is concerned about the 
affordability of CPGS given the current budgetary environment.
    Based on briefings by the Department, the committee is 
aware of other potential conventional long-range strike 
capabilities that may be lower cost, carry less technical risk, 
and provide a capability sooner than CSM. The committee 
encourages a broader examination of the tradespace of CPGS 
capabilities and concepts to meet warfighter requirements.
    The committee recommends $179.8 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, in PE 64165D8Z for CPGS capability development. 
The committee encourages the Department to focus on basic 
technology feasibility and believes its recommended reduction 
can be partially offset by expected fiscal year 2011 
unobligated funds.

Cyber test and evaluation

    The committee recognizes the importance of information 
technology (IT) and cyber security-related technologies in 
providing critical capabilities to Armed Forces in the future. 
The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 
111-23) and the report ``Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
Findings and Recommendations'' places significant importance on 
conducting rigorous testing and evaluation in order to improve 
defense acquisition outcomes. While the ``2010 Test and 
Evaluation Strategic Plan'' addresses numerous capability gaps 
in cyber testing, the committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense is not providing sufficient resources to 
address rapidly increasing demands to conduct developmental and 
operational test and evaluation (T&E) for future IT systems.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in 
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, 
to conduct an analysis of T&E resources needed to address the 
capability gaps outlined by the ``2010 Test and Evaluation 
Strategic Plan.'' The analysis should examine the following:
          (1) Whether the Department of Defense is sufficiently 
        funding T&E at the level necessary to address cyber and 
        IT capability needs over the Future Years Defense 
        Program;
          (2) Whether the Department of Defense has sufficient 
        numbers of technical personnel with the expertise in IT 
        disciplines to conduct T&E for cyber and IT systems 
        over the Future Years Defense Program; and
          (3) Whether the Department of Defense has adequate 
        infrastructure to conduct T&E for cyber and IT systems 
        over the Future Years Defense Program.
    The committee further directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services on the results of this analysis within 180 days 
after date of the enactment of this Act.

Defense laboratory survey

    The committee recognizes the key role that Department of 
Defense (DOD) laboratories play in technology development, 
scientific innovation, and acquisition excellence. DOD 
laboratories are critical to maintaining the technological 
superiority and competency of the military, and to monitor 
global technology developments to prevent surprise and mitigate 
adversarial developments. The committee remains committed to 
ensuring that the Department of Defense laboratory system has 
the resources and authority to support the scientific and 
technological management of the military.
    The committee is concerned, however, that there may be 
certain regulations, instructions, policies and practices 
instituted by the Department and the military services that may 
lessen the laboratories effectiveness and efficiency, hindering 
the innovative spirit that drives the laboratories. The 
committee believes that an assessment of the possible 
constraints on the mission of the various laboratories would be 
beneficial to ensuring their long-term viability as leaders in 
the pursuit of technological advancement.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering to survey directors of the 
Department of Defense laboratories to determine how to 
streamline DOD regulations, instructions and policies impacting 
the laboratories and to make recommendations to improve the 
Department of Defense laboratory system. The committee further 
directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering to provide a briefing on the results of this survey 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Armed 
Services Committee within 120 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

Directed energy research

    The budget request contained $96.3 million in PE 63901C for 
directed energy research programs for the Missile Defense 
Agency (MDA).
    The budget request supports the maintenance of the Airborne 
Laser Test Bed (ALTB) as a science and technology test bed, 
additional beam propagation and lethality testing, and further 
maturation of Diode Pumped Alkaline-gas Laser System 
technology.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee directed the Director, Defense Research and 
Engineering (DDR&E) to submit a report on the Department's 
review of directed energy technologies to the congressional 
defense committees by July 1, 2010. The committee is 
disappointed that it has not received this report.
    The committee notes that the ALTB is the only megawatt-
class laser currently within the Department of Defense and 
understands that it is providing risk reduction for future 
airborne systems by performing wide-ranging laser science and 
technology. However, the committee notes a March 2011 
Government Accountability Office report on ballistic missile 
defense that found, ``technical issues continued to affect the 
test bed's experiments throughout fiscal year 2010 and into 
early fiscal year 2011.'' The committee is concerned that these 
technical issues, combined with recent ALTB flight test 
failures, may delay important laser technology risk reduction 
activities.
    The committee supports the promising technologies and 
technology demonstration activities currently being reviewed 
which may warrant additional resources, and understands that 
the review of these technologies and research activities is to 
be included in the aforementioned DDR&E report. However, the 
committee is concerned that the budget request does not include 
sufficient funds to maintain the ALTB platform, support further 
testing, continue technology development, and retain a uniquely 
skilled workforce.
    The committee recommends $146.3 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, in PE 63901C for directed energy research 
programs for MDA, to be allocated at the discretion of the 
Director, Missile Defense Agency, in consultation with the 
Director, Defense Research and Engineering, to support 
increased research, development, and testing of directed energy 
technologies, including the use of the ALTB platform.

Engineer and Scientist Exchange Program

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
executes a program known as the Engineer and Scientist Exchange 
Program (ESEP). Its purpose is to promote international 
cooperation in military research, development, and acquisition 
through the exchange of defense scientists and engineers. The 
primary goals of ESEP are as follows:
          (1) Broaden perspectives in research and development 
        techniques and methods;
          (2) Form a cadre of professionals with international 
        experience to enhance research and development 
        programs;
          (3) Gain insight into foreign research and 
        development methods, organizational structures, 
        procedures, production, logistics, testing, and 
        management systems;
          (4) Cultivate future international cooperative 
        endeavors; and
          (5) Avoid duplication of research efforts among 
        allied nations.
    The committee supports the goals of this program and 
encourages the Department to make greater use of this program 
to facilitate cooperation and collaboration with our foreign 
allies and partners in the area of computer network operations. 
The committee believes that this could help our foreign 
partners build their own cyber operations capabilities, as well 
as boost U.S. capacity in this area.

Fabrication of micro-air vehicles

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
developing an array of micro-air vehicles to provide small-unit 
oriented sensing capabilities for tactical reconnaissance, 
hazardous materials sensing and clandestine surveillance. Many 
of the designs for these micro-air vehicles are based on 
biomimetic constructions that leverage the unique 
characteristics inherent in birds and insects. The committee is 
aware that these biomimetic designs pose unique fabrication 
challenges at the micro scale, particularly with regards to 
robustness and maintainability. The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to continue research and development in 
the area of fabrication for micro-air vehicles, which the 
committee believes represents an underappreciated challenge to 
the widespread adoption and deployment of micro-air vehicles 
for defense applications.

Ground-based midcourse defense

    The budget request contained $1.2 billion in PE 63882C for 
the ballistic missile defense midcourse segment for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA).
    The request supports the continued development, testing, 
operations, and sustainment of the ground-based midcourse (GMD) 
system, including the acquisition of 5 ground-based 
interceptors (GBI); completion of the new 14-silo Missile Field 
2 at Fort Greely, Alaska; placement of the six-silo Missile 
Field 1 in Fort Greely, Alaska, in a mothball status; and 
beginning preliminary design work to locate an In-Flight 
Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) Data Terminal (IDT) 
at an East Coast site by 2015.
    The last two intercept flight tests of the GMD system, FTG-
06 in January 2010 and FTG-06a in December 2010, failed to 
achieve intercept. The committee understands that the FTG-06 
failure was principally due to a quality control issue 
associated with a component in the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle 
(EKV). The FTG-06a failure is still under investigation but is 
also centered on technical issues involving the EKV.
    The committee is troubled by these back-to-back flight test 
failures and, when viewed in the context of the entire GMD 
flight test history, questions whether there are more systemic 
issues within the GMD program. The committee remains concerned 
about the reliability of the GMD system and its overall 
operational effectiveness. The committee notes that the GMD 
system is currently the only missile defense system that 
protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic 
missile attacks. The committee believes the Department must 
prioritize the GMD system and allocate sufficient resources to 
sustain, test, and evolve it. Elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee includes a provision that would establish the sense 
of Congress and require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees a plan by the Director, 
Missile Defense Agency to address the GMD flight-test failures, 
including the schedule and additional resources necessary to 
implement the plan.
    The committee is also concerned about the budget trends in 
the GMD program and its potential impact on the reliability and 
effectiveness of the system. In the fiscal year 2010 budget, 
the GMD program was reduced by $445.3 million. The fiscal year 
2011 budget request restored $324.2 million of this amount, but 
the fiscal year 2012 request would reduce the program by $185.2 
million. Furthermore, the Future Years Defense Program spending 
profile for GMD is approximately $1.0 billion less than was 
projected 1-year ago.
    Furthermore, the committee has learned that the combination 
of flight-test failures and MDA operations under reduced 
spending limits resulting from continuing resolutions during 
fiscal year 2011, before the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10) 
was enacted, has resulted in several schedule delays within the 
GMD program. In information provided to the committee, MDA 
indicates that it plans to delay GBI manufacturing and fleet 
upgrades; Stockpile Reliability Program component testing; new 
capability development, modeling, testing, and fielding; and 
missile defense complex communications upgrades at Fort Greely. 
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 
April 2011, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency noted 
that MDA also plans to delay flight testing of the two-stage 
GBI to harvest its funds to fix the EKV.
    The committee supports the need to investigate and resolve 
the problems that plagued the EKV in the FTG-06a test, and 
believes this should be done prior to conducting additional 
intercept flight tests. However, the committee questions plans 
by MDA to wait over 2 years to repeat the FTG-06a intercept 
flight test given recent testimony by the Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency that MDA's top priority is to resolve 
the problem and successfully repeat FTG-06a.
    Additionally, in testimony before the committee in March 
2011, the Director, Missile Defense Agency acknowledged that 
procurement of additional GBIs will be necessary in light of 
recent flight-test results and that the Department should 
reassess the number of GBIs it should procure.
    The committee understands, based on information provided by 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), that MDA has halted 
deliveries of completed EKVs until the root cause is determined 
and resolved, but has allowed the contractor to continue work 
on components of the EKV that were deemed not part of the 
December 2010 failure in order to keep the production line 
moving and to allow a rapid recovery of deliveries once changes 
or mitigations are implemented. The committee supports such an 
approach and further believes MDA should begin acquiring long-
lead components, deemed not part of the December 2010 failure, 
for additional GBIs. The committee further expects that MDA 
would procure additional GBIs in fiscal year 2013. The 
committee notes a GAO observation, contained it its October 
2010 interim briefing to the congressional defense committees 
on the GMD program, that GBI purchases after fiscal year 2013 
may incur manufacturing line restart costs for third and fourth 
tier suppliers, which might be higher than expected. The 
committee notes that MDA plans to award a new development and 
sustainment contract for the GMD system in June 2011, and urges 
MDA to closely manage any contractor transition to minimize 
mission impact during this critical period in the GMD program.
    The committee recommends $1.3 billion, an increase of 
$100.0 million, in PE 63882C for the ground-based midcourse 
defense system to accelerate resolution of the EKV failure, 
restore delays in testing, restore other program delays 
described above, and begin acquisition of long-lead components, 
deemed not part of the December 2010 failure, for additional 
GBIs.

High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System

    The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) for its work in directed energy 
technology, and in particular the High Energy Liquid Laser Area 
Defense System (HELLADS) program. The committee believes that 
advancing the development of directed energy weapons will 
provide the Department with valuable technical capabilities to 
counter a range of perceived future threats. The committee 
recognizes that DARPA's innovative approach employed in the 
HELLADS program offers a valuable technological alternative 
that complements the approaches being pursued by the military 
departments. The size, weight, and power reductions expected 
from HELLADS are necessary steps if the Department wishes to 
find suitable tactical applications for directed energy 
weapons.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving 
        Institutions

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 62228D8Z for 
the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority 
Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI) program.
    The committee is aware that the HBCU/MI program serves a 
number of objectives for the Department of Defense (DOD), 
including:
          (1) Enhancing research programs and capabilities in 
        scientific and engineering disciplines critical to the 
        national security functions of the Department;
          (2) Encouraging greater participation in DOD programs 
        and activities;
          (3) Increasing the number of graduates, including 
        underrepresented minorities in science, technical 
        engineering and mathematics fields; and
          (4) Encouraging research and educational 
        collaboration with other colleges and universities.
    The committee continues to support the objectives of the 
HBCU/MI program, and the role it plays in expanding the breadth 
and diversity of the scientific workforce. Furthermore, the 
committee encourages the Department to explore ways to leverage 
the participation of not-for-profit institutions to enhance the 
goals of the HBCU/MI program.
    The committee recommends $10.0 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 62228D8Z to support additional competitive 
awards through the HBCU/MI program.

Industrial research and development activities

    The committee continues to support the Department of 
Defense's research and development enterprise, including the 
key role played by the Department of Defense laboratories, 
product centers, and other engineering facilities. The 
committee believes that these facilities are critical to 
maintaining the military's technological superiority, as well 
as contributing to the economic health and scientific 
competitiveness of the United States.
    The committee also recognizes that the defense industrial 
base makes significant investments that complement and 
sometimes supplant government funding in order to promote 
technological development. These industrial research and 
development (IR&D) investments are important components to 
creating a sustainable foundation for economic growth and 
technological advancement. In an era of shrinking budgets and 
fiscal constraint, the committee encourages the Department and 
the defense industrial base to create additional information 
sharing mechanisms that will increase visibility into these 
IR&D investments and better leverage limited resources, reduce 
the potential for duplication and waste, and improve government 
to industry collaboration on research.

Israeli cooperative missile defense

    The budget request contained $106.1 million in PE 63913C 
for Israeli cooperative programs for the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA). Of this amount, $11.8 million was requested for 
improvements to the Arrow Weapon System (AWS), $53.2 million 
for continued development of the Arrow-3 interceptor, and $41.1 
million for continued development of the David's Sling Weapon 
System (DSWS).
    The fiscal year 2012 request represents a decrease of 
$103.8 million from the fiscal year 2011 appropriated level.
    Since 1986, the United States and the State of Israel have 
cooperated on missile defense. MDA has four major initiatives 
with Israel to develop and improve the Israelis' indigenous 
capabilities to defend against short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles: (1) AWS for defense against medium-range 
missile threats; (2) the Arrow-3 interceptor, an upper tier 
follow-on to AWS; (3) DSWS for defense against short-range 
systems; and (4) Iron Dome for defense against long-range 
rockets and short-range missiles. The United States and Israel 
also participate in joint missile defense exercises and tests, 
to enhance the interoperability and integration of U.S. and 
Israeli missile defense systems.
    The committee commends Israel for its rapid development and 
deployment of the Iron Dome short-range rocket and missile 
defense system. In April 2011, the Iron Dome system shot down 
several rockets fired from the Gaza Strip aimed at Israeli 
cities. The committee believes such attacks are a reminder of 
the immediacy of the missile threat to Israel and the need for 
supporting accelerated efforts to cooperatively develop, test, 
and field missile defense capabilities for Israel.
    However, the budget request does not support full-scale 
development of the DSWS to ensure that a first battery will be 
delivered in 2012. The budget request also fails to provide for 
completion of development and testing of AWS enhancements and 
acceleration of Arrow-3 interceptor development. The committee 
is aware that steady progress continues to be made in meeting 
the agreed Arrow-3 knowledge points.
    The committee therefore recommends $216.1 million, an 
increase of $110.0 million, in PE 63913C for Israeli 
cooperative programs, to be allocated at the discretion of the 
Director, Missile Defense Agency.

Medical Countermeasures Initiative and the Chemical and Biological 
        Defense Program

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
pursuing a new Medical Countermeasure Initiative (MCMI) within 
the Chemical and Biological Defense Program designed to enable 
rapid delivery of new medical countermeasures to dangerous 
pathogens through a strategic partnership between the U.S. 
Government and industry. The committee is also aware that MCMI 
is designed to enhance force protection for military personnel 
against emerging threats and infectious diseases and fill a 
capability gap, which was underscored by the inability to 
rapidly produce vaccine for the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus 
pandemic.
    The committee is also aware that the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported in GAO-11-318SP 
``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'' that most 
Federal efforts and programs within the bio-defense enterprise 
are fragmented and that the overarching enterprise lacks 
strategic oversight mechanisms. GAO also concludes that there 
is no broad, integrated national strategy that encompasses all 
stakeholders with bio-defense responsibilities that can be used 
to guide the systemic identification of risk, assessment of 
resources needed to address those risks, and the prioritization 
and allocation of investment across the entire Federal 
Government. As such, neither the Office of Management and 
Budget, nor the Federal agencies account for bio-defense 
spending across the entire Federal Government.
    While the committee understands the need to ensure rapid 
delivery of advanced medical countermeasures to dangerous 
pathogens, the committee is concerned that the Department is 
initiating MCMI as a new-start program in a bio-defense sector 
already identified by GAO as fragmented and disjointed. The 
committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
a detailed briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, on the efforts taken by the 
Department to ensure programmatic success in this area, 
including but not limited to: cost, schedule, and performance 
in the Future Years Defense Program; efforts to interface with 
and implement cost-sharing mechanisms across industry; efforts 
to enhance efficiencies and reduce fragmentation related to 
Department of Defense equities within the interagency bio-
defense enterprise; and efforts taken to ensure interagency 
collaboration such as cross-cutting information management and 
communications, research and development, and acquisition 
efforts.

Meeting airspace needs for defense-related Unmanned Aerial Systems 
        research

    The committee notes that availability of special use 
airspace is important to research related to Unmanned Aerial 
Systems (UAS) and national defense needs. The proliferation of 
technology enabling the use of UAS represents a clear future 
threat to national security; however, lack of special use 
airspace to research detection techniques is a potential 
impediment to the Nation's ability to counter the threat. The 
committee encourages discussions between the Air Force Research 
Laboratory and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to 
explore ways for the FAA and the Department of Defense to work 
together on problems related to integrating UAS into the 
National Airspace System. The committee urges the Department of 
Defense and the FAA to place a high priority on meeting 
national defense needs for special use airspace related to UAS 
research, including addressing defense needs for special use 
airspace for research in ``detect and destroy'' technologies.

Missile defense adjunct sensor capabilities

    The committee is aware of Department of Defense sensor 
capabilities that are not funded by the Missile Defense Agency 
but have the potential to contribute to the missile defense 
mission. Such adjunct sensor capabilities, including the radars 
on the Cobra Judy Replacement mobile maritime ship, could be 
integrated with ballistic missile defense software and linked 
with existing communications networks to provide additional 
detection, tracking, and discrimination of ballistic missiles, 
thereby improving sea- and land-based missile defense 
capabilities. The committee urges the Missile Defense Agency to 
work with the military services to identify such sensor 
capabilities and pursue opportunities to conduct simulations, 
experiments, and demonstrations to assess the feasibility and 
benefit of integrating adjunct sensors.

Mitochondrial disease research

    The committee believes that mitochondrial disease and 
dysfunction is relevant to military medicine. In particular, 
the role of the mitochondria as the ``power plant'' of the cell 
implicates it in a whole range of questions pertaining to 
energy levels and fatigue, which is directly related to human 
performance. Therefore the committee encourages the Department 
of Defense to include mitochondrial disease and dysfunction as 
one of the types of diseases researched through the general 
``Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program''.

Mobile applications development

    The committee is aware that the military departments and 
Defense agencies are pursuing future network strategies that 
would leverage developments in the commercial marketplace. 
These commercially-developed mobile devices, such as smart 
phones and tablet computers, are in high demand by the Armed 
Forces, and offer computational power, flexibility, and 
technology refresh rates not currently achievable in military-
developed communications and computing devices.
    The committee is also aware that some defense 
organizations, such as the Army, the Defense Information 
Systems Agency, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA), have begun experimenting with mobile computing 
devices to field relevant applications for military use. For 
example, the Army held a competition in 2010 to spur 
development of mobile device applications, and has established 
a small, dedicated effort within Training and Doctrine Command 
to focus on mobile applications development. DARPA has also 
begun examining how the Department might support applications 
development for mobile computing devices in the future.
    The committee is concerned that the Department has not 
devoted sufficient attention to these efforts, and thus the 
necessary policy developments needed to support these 
technology developments has been lagging. For example, the 
process for test, evaluation, certification and accreditation 
of these applications for network use has not been sufficiently 
clarified and takes significantly longer than similar processes 
in the commercial sector. This time lag and policy ambiguity 
has resulted in some users bypassing security procedures in 
order to get access to the capabilities these applications 
provide.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense 
(DOD) Chief Information Officer to develop and issue a 
Department of Defense Instruction within 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act to clarify the process for 
developing and using mobile applications on DOD networks. The 
Instruction should address development, test, evaluation, 
certification, accreditation, and mechanisms for making these 
applications available to the user community. The development 
of the Instruction should also be coordinated through the 
working group process supporting the development of a rapid 
information technology acquisition process as part of section 
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84).

Multidisciplinary research in cyber-related fields

    The committee is encouraged by the importance placed by the 
Department overall on research into cyber-related fields in the 
budget request. The committee is concerned that the current 
research emphasis has been on traditional computational and 
mathematical sciences and insufficient emphasis has been placed 
on the behavioral and economic aspects of cyber-related 
activities to develop a solid understanding of how decision-
making and risk analysis are conducted. The committee 
encourages the Department to create more multidisciplinary 
research opportunities which combine traditional computational 
scientific fields with social science disciplines in order to 
provide a more quantitative scientific underpinning for 
understanding the behavioral aspects of cyber security.

Nanotechnology research

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
pursuing research into a variety of nanotechnology applications 
for defense purposes. New capabilities enabled by the unique 
performance enhancements of nanostructure materials hold the 
potential of transforming the technology landscape. The 
committee encourages the Department to continue to make 
investments in nanotechnology research that is needed to create 
the next generation of sensors, electronics, weapons, and 
manufacturing processes.
    However, the committee is concerned that the Department of 
Defense lacks sufficient expertise in some emerging research 
disciplines related to nanotechnology to support a long-term 
research investment strategy. The committee is aware that a 
dedicated federally funded research and development center 
(FFRDC) could support the Department in this effort, but that 
no such broad-based nanotechnology FFRDC exists.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a report to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act on how the Department of Defense receives support from 
the research community on nanotechnology issues, including 
identifying where within the existing FFRDC community that 
expertise comes from, and assessing whether a dedicated FFRDC 
is needed.

National Research and Education Center for Corrosion

    The committee recognizes the critical role that academia 
and university programs play in avoiding costly design and 
development errors and encourages the Department of Defense to 
strengthen its ties with researchers, service laboratories, and 
educators in the field of corrosion. The committee recommends 
that the Department of Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight expand university-related initiatives in the 
Department of Defense Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 
Strategic Plan, which could include bachelor of science 
programs in corrosion engineering; expansion of projects that 
address high-cost areas in the Cost of Corrosion Baseline 
Study; and outreach, communication, education, training, and 
policy activities that support the warfighter. The committee 
endorses the action of the Director of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight to establish a national research and education center 
for corrosion and recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
provide the necessary funding to support the faculty and 
associated resources at the center.

Phased, adaptive approach

    The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 
the progress it has made over the past year in the 
implementation of the phased, adaptive approach (PAA) for 
missile defense in Europe. The committee also appreciates the 
Department's improved engagement with the committee on the 
European phased, adaptive approach (EPAA).
    As announced by the President in September 2009, the EPAA 
is designed to: sustain U.S. homeland defense against long-
range ballistic missile threats; speed protection of U.S. 
deployed forces, civilian personnel, and their accompanying 
families against the near-term missile threat from Iran; ensure 
and enhance the protection of the territory and populations of 
all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, in 
concert with their missile defense capabilities, against the 
current and growing ballistic missile threat; deploy proven 
capabilities and technologies to meet current threats; and 
provide flexibility to upgrade and adjust the architecture, and 
to do so in a cost-effective manner, as the threat evolves.
    The committee notes that NATO formally endorsed territorial 
missile defense at its November 2010 Lisbon Summit and in its 
new Strategic Concept, and welcomed the EPAA ``as a valuable 
national contribution to the NATO missile defence 
architecture.'' The Lisbon Summit Declaration further stated 
that such a territorial missile defense capability would be 
``based on the principles of the indivisibility of Allied 
security and NATO solidarity.''
    The committee has observed a range of DOD activities, many 
in conjunction with the Department of State, to implement EPAA. 
These include the March 2011 deployment of the Aegis ballistic 
missile defense cruiser USS Monterey to the Mediterranean for a 
6-month mission to provide some defensive coverage of south and 
southeastern Europe as part of EPAA phase one, and ongoing 
bilateral negotiations with Romania and the Republic of Poland 
for the hosting of a land-based Aegis Ashore site as part of 
phase two and phase three, respectively. The committee is 
concerned, however, about the Department's plans for forward-
basing an AN/TPY-2 radar in southeastern Europe to meet the 
2011 timeline for EPAA phase one, as a location has yet to be 
determined.
    The committee expects continued engagement with the 
Department of Defense as the EPAA further evolves. The 
committee understands that specific command and control 
arrangements between the U.S. and other NATO members are still 
being developed. The committee believes contributions by U.S. 
allies are essential if EPAA is to be a NATO-wide capability 
and reflect the burden sharing commitment underpinning NATO.
    Additionally, at the committee's request, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the Department of 
Defense's plans for EPAA implementation. In its December 2010 
report, GAO expressed concern that ``DOD has not developed an 
overall investment cost or an acquisition decision schedule. 
The limited visibility into the costs and schedule for European 
PAA constrains independent assessments of progress as well as 
limits oversight.'' Furthermore, a September 2010 independent 
assessment of EPAA by the Institute for Defense Analyses, 
required by section 235 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), estimated the 27-
year total costs for the EPAA at $22.0 billion to $23.0 
billion, which is significantly more than cost estimates 
provided to the committee by MDA. As the committee continues 
its oversight of EPAA, it expects MDA to further refine its 
cost estimates.
    GAO further observed that system schedules are highly 
optimistic in technology development, testing, production, and 
integration, leaving little room for potential delays. To this 
point, the committee is concerned about the development of the 
standard missile (SM)-3 Block IIA and SM-3 Block IIB 
interceptors as well as the timeline for phase 4 of the EPAA, 
which is planned to provide additional protection of the United 
States. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes an 
increase in SM-3 Block IIA funds.

Precision Tracking Space System

    The budget request contained $160.8 million in PE 64883C 
for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA).
    The request would support trade studies and alternative 
analyses, preliminary subsystem designs, and risk reduction 
activities. According to MDA budget materials, PTSS is planned 
to provide tracking, discrimination, and fire control quality 
data to enable earlier intercept opportunities. PTSS is also 
expected to increase the missile raid handling capacity of the 
ballistic missile defense system. The program was a new start 
in fiscal year 2011.
    The committee is concerned about the acquisition approach 
for PTSS, which is planned to leverage mature technology, and 
be a less complex and lower-cost design than its predecessor, 
two Space Tracking and Surveillance System demonstration 
satellites launched in 2009 that are providing risk reduction 
for PTSS. However, MDA is leveraging Government and military 
laboratories to design and develop the first two PTSS 
satellites for launch in fiscal year 2016. The committee sees a 
dichotomy between MDA's plans for a technically mature, less 
complex system and an approach that leverages labs, which 
primarily focus on scientific research and advanced technology 
development. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 
technical trades required to implement a less complex, lower-
cost design would lead to performance trade-offs that may 
impact the ability of PTSS to provide sufficient ascent and 
midcourse tracking.
    Based on MDA descriptions, both PTSS and the Airborne 
Infrared (ABIR) system are planned to provide larger raid size 
tracking and support early intercept opportunities. The 
committee is concerned about the affordability of continuing 
both PTSS and ABIR given the current budgetary environment and 
the committee's other missile defense priorities.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $160.8 
million, in PE 64883C for the Precision Tracking Space System. 
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 
additional funds to accelerate ABIR, based on recommendations 
contained in the Joint Capabilities Mix-III study, and to 
increase data exploitation from other overhead persistent 
infrared sensors to include the Space-Based Infrared System and 
a program discussed in the classified annex accompanying this 
report.

Project Pelican

    The committee continues to support the efforts within the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering to pursue a technology demonstrator for a rigid-
hull, variable-buoyancy hybrid air vehicle, known as ``Project 
Pelican.'' As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010, the proposed capabilities have the potential to 
revolutionize the future of intra-theater lift, as well as 
other areas of importance, such as intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance, and communications relay.
    However, the committee is cautiously optimistic about the 
progress of the demonstrator vehicle, and cautions against 
scaling this vehicle up to an operational system before the 
technology is adequately validated. The committee is concerned 
that airship technology has a history of being hampered by a 
variety of operational constraints that the military has not 
adequately dealt with since the last military airships were 
retired more than 50-years ago. The committee believes the 
Department should pursue a parallel path that demonstrates 
robust concepts of operation as the technology is matured and 
validated. Part of the process of developing concepts of 
operation should include planning and analysis for addressing 
operational and logistical constraints of using large airships, 
such as basing, airspace management, and environmental issues.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering to conduct a series of 
tabletop exercises, in conjunction with the service acquisition 
executives of the military departments and the combatant 
commanders, to develop concepts of operations for how rigid-
hull, variable-buoyancy hybrid air vehicle technology might be 
employed in future platforms. The committee further directs the 
Assistant Secretary to brief the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the 
results of the tabletop exercises within 270 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

Scientific and engineering fellowships

    The committee recognizes the importance of the various 
fellowship and scholarship programs operated by the Department 
of Defense and the intelligence agencies. The committee 
strongly encourages the Department and other agencies to 
aggressively examine ways to increase the participation of 
diverse graduate level students in the physical sciences in 
these programs. The committee also encourages the Department to 
complement existing programs by partnering with non-profit 
organizations for these purposes when doing so would be cost-
effective and beneficial.

Semiconductor development

    The committee recognizes the importance of the development 
of advanced integrated circuits by the semiconductor industry 
for defense applications. The committee is aware that the 
diminishing domestic semiconductor supply chain posses a 
critical challenge to U.S. national security interests, 
particularly with regard to the impact that counterfeit and 
maliciously altered electronics could potentially have on 
systems requiring a high-degree of trust. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue 
working with industry and academia to pursue development of new 
advanced domestic manufacturing technologies for 
semiconductors.

Social media tools for collaboration

    The committee is aware that the Defense Information Systems 
Agency has been developing a range of collaboration tools as 
part of the Net Centric Enterprise Services (NCES) program. 
These collaboration tools are necessary for Department of 
Defense personnel to carry out their missions. However, it is 
unclear whether these tools can evolve rapidly enough to meet 
the growing capability demands of the user community.
    The committee understands that emerging social media 
applications for the commercial marketplace have been developed 
in parallel at a much faster pace, and also provide significant 
capability for collaboration and information analysis. The 
committee urges the Defense Information Systems Agency to 
examine these social media tools to determine how they might be 
better integrated into future increments of NCES to complement 
traditional collaboration tools.

Standard Missile-3 Block IIA interceptor

    The budget request contained $424.5 million in PE 64881C 
for Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block IIA Co-Development for the 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
    The request would support the continued development and 
testing of the SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, which is being co-
developed in cooperation with the Government of Japan. The SM-3 
Block IIA is being designed with a larger diameter missile and 
more advanced kill vehicle technology than the SM-3 Block IA/IB 
interceptor. Upon planned deployment in 2018 as part of phase 3 
of the President's phased, adaptive approach to missile defense 
in Europe, the SM-3 Block IIB is expected to provide expanded 
coverage of Europe against intermediate range ballistic missile 
threats, and may provide some limited intercontinental 
ballistic missile intercept capability.
    The committee is concerned about schedule risk in the SM-3 
Block IIA program. The system preliminary design review (PDR) 
is planned for fiscal year 2012, leading to a first flight test 
planned for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. The 
committee understands, however, that technical issues surfaced 
during component-level PDRs involving the divert and attitude 
control system in the kill vehicle, nosecone weight, and third 
stage rocket motor. The committee understands the technology 
maturation process and appreciates MDA efforts to retire 
technology risk. However, the committee believes MDA will be 
challenged in holding to its current schedule and is concerned 
about the program's ability to meet its planned 2018 deployment 
date.
    The committee requests MDA to provide an updated schedule 
and funding profile for the SM-3 Block IIA program should 
either change in the near-term. The committee also notes that 
arrangements for SM-3 Block IIA production have not been 
determined with the Government of Japan, and the committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to begin such discussions.
    The committee recommends $464.5 million, an increase of 
$40.0 million, in PE 64881C for SM-3 Block IIA Co-Development 
to fund additional development and technology risk reduction 
efforts, at the discretion of the Director, Missile Defense 
Agency, to reduce schedule risk.

Study on possible establishment of a power and energy University 
        Affiliated Research Center

    The committee recognizes the national security imperative 
for diversifying fuel supply and reducing energy consumption. 
The Department of Defense has many Department goals and laws 
for reducing energy consumption including increasing the use of 
renewable technologies.
    Establishing a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) 
is one potential method for providing the Department of Defense 
with long-term continuity for essential research, development, 
and engineering capability enhancements in specific mission 
areas. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a study to assess the cost and feasibility 
of establishing a UARC that researches and develops power and 
energy technologies to reduce energy demand, improve energy-
efficiency, and help achieve the overall mission requirements 
of the Department of Defense and military services. The 
committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by February 29, 2012. The report 
should include recommendations regarding the potential 
establishment of this UARC, the proposed funding required to 
establish the UARC, and an analysis of potential locations.

Technology transition and insertion

    The committee understands that rapid acquisition programs 
are increasingly used in the place of dedicated technology 
transition programs and that the Department did not request any 
funds for fiscal year 2012 for the Defense Acquisition 
Challenge program. The committee is concerned about the 
effectiveness of technology transition within the Department 
and the opportunity to insert innovative and cost-saving 
technologies into Department of Defense acquisition programs.
    The committee notes that technology transition is essential 
to fulfilling the mandate of section 202 of the Weapon Systems 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), which 
requires acquisition strategies to ensure competition 
throughout the lifecycle of major defense acquisition programs. 
The committee believes that program managers are risk averse 
and are not incentivized to pull new technologies into programs 
of record in order to foster competition and reduce program 
cost. Consequently, there is a need for mechanisms external to 
a program of record to identify promising new technologies and 
to reduce the risk of technology transition for major defense 
acquisition programs. However, both the committee and the 
Government Accountability Office have observed that the 
Department's approach to funding transition is flawed and that 
multiple, small funding sources for specific transition 
activities offer a piecemeal solution to a more systemic 
problem.
    Accordingly, section 253 of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to assess the feasibility 
of consolidating technology transition accounts into one 
account to be managed at the Department-level. Section 253 also 
required the USD (AT&L) to submit a report to Congress on the 
aforementioned assessment and include recommendations 
concerning the streamlining and improvement of technology 
transition activities throughout the Department. Unfortunately, 
the USD(AT&L) has failed to comply with this statutory 
requirement, which was required no later than October 1, 2009.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision 
that would repeal the Technology Transition Initiative, section 
2359a of title 10, United States Code effective October 1, 
2012. However, the repeal of that initiative is incumbent upon 
compliance with section 253 of Public Law 110-417. The 
committee expects the USD(AT&L) to comply with section 253 no 
later than August 31, 2011, so the congressional defense 
committees can understand the full ramifications of the repeal 
or modification of technology transition and insertion 
activities, such as the Technology Transition Initiative and 
the Defense Acquisition Challenge program.

University Affiliated Research Centers

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense funds 
a number of University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) to 
support its research needs. Although permitted by law to award 
research and development contracts non-competitively to 
universities and other non-profit organizations, the Department 
of Defense has chosen to limit the UARC program to 
universities. The committee is concerned that by barring non-
profit research organizations from programs such as UARCs, the 
Department is depriving itself from utilizing specialized 
expertise that exists within non-profit research and 
development organizations.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering to review the Department 
of Defense's guidance pertaining to non-profit research 
institutions to participate in UARCs and other research and 
development contracting opportunities to ensure that these 
organizations are not being unfairly excluded from 
competitions. The committee further directs the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a 
briefing on the results of this review to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services within 
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Vertical lift consortium

    The committee recognizes the essential role that vertical 
lift aircraft serve as a critical enabler for the Department's 
execution of time-sensitive and terrain-restricted combat and 
humanitarian missions around the world. The committee notes 
that the requirements of the combatant commanders for vertical 
lift capabilities continue to increase. The committee supports 
the Department's future vertical lift initiative to improve the 
long-term state of military vertical lift aircraft. The 
committee also supports the Department's efforts to promote the 
formation of, and its subsequent engagement with the Vertical 
Lift Consortium (VLC), a non-profit corporation with open 
membership made up of large, small, and non-traditional U.S. 
businesses and academia engaged in rotorcraft technology 
development. The Department established an Other Transaction 
Agreement with the VLC which provides a mechanism for it to 
receive direct feedback regarding the development of realistic 
and achievable requirements, and provides a simplified contract 
vehicle for the competitive award of contracts for the rapid 
and low-cost flight demonstration of vertical lift technologies 
responsive to warfighter needs.
    The committee notes that despite encouraging the 
establishment of the VLC, the Department has yet to fund it. 
The committee encourages the Department to take action to 
either fund the VLC or to disestablish it in the near future. 
In addition, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 
2012, that states the Department's current and future plans for 
the VLC.

Weaponization of rail-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems

    The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's 
interest in weaponizing rail-launched Unmanned Aerial Systems 
(UAS) to respond to urgent requirements to protect U.S. and 
coalition forces. The committee further understands there is an 
urgent needs statement being staffed to meet requirements in 
U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility.
    The committee recommends that the Department of Defense 
continue to pursue the conventional weaponization of rail-
launched UAS, like the RQ-7B Shadow and similar systems to 
respond to urgent requirements to better defend U.S. and 
coalition forces.

Weapons of Mass Destruction defeat technologies and capabilities

    The committee notes that the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency (DTRA) continues a strong partnership with each of the 
services and U.S. Special Operations Command to develop and 
field innovative weapons of mass destruction (WMD) defeat 
technologies and solutions that reduce, eliminate and counter 
the threat of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 
high-yield explosive materials (CBRNE). In particular, the 
committee supports DTRA's ongoing activities to develop and 
demonstrate innovative munitions that incinerate and destroy 
chemical and biological agents without incidental target agent 
dispersal and area contamination. These technical capabilities 
remain an area of particular interest to the committee since 
the national intelligence community continues to assess 
credible threats posed by terrorist groups, states, and state-
sponsored entities to acquire and weaponize CBRNE materials for 
use against the United States and its allies. The committee 
therefore encourages DTRA to continue development and 
demonstration of innovative and emerging agent and functional 
defeat technologies to ensure prompt transition of validated 
capabilities to address national security requirements.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $191.3 million for operational 
test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $191.3 
million, the requested amount for fiscal year 2012.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 
operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified 
in division D of this Act.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


              Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize appropriations for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation at the levels identified in 
section 4201 of division D of this Act.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


Section 211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Ground Combat 
                            Vehicle Program

    This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds 
to not more than 70 percent for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) 
program until the Secretary of the Army provides a report to 
the defense committees containing an updated analysis of 
alternatives that includes a quantitative comparison of the 
most current upgraded Bradley Fighting Vehicle and other 
alternatives against the revised GCV design concept.
    The committee continues to support the Army's goal of 
pursuing a modernized combat vehicle. However, before the Army 
starts another major development program that could cost over 
$30.0 billion, the committee must be convinced that the GCV 
will be significantly more capable than an upgraded version of 
current fielded platforms. The committee understands that the 
Army wants the GCV to carry three additional soldiers, but the 
committee believes that should not be the primary attribute 
that drives the decision on continuing the project on its 
current path. The committee believes that the GCV program 
should not proceed beyond the technology development phase 
unless the committee's issues and concerns are addressed.

       Section 212--Limitation on the Individual Carbine Program

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
conduct a robust and comprehensive analysis of alternatives 
(AOA) assessment, similar to a cost and operational 
effectiveness analysis for the Individual Carbine (IC) program. 
The section would also prohibit the IC program from moving 
beyond its milestone C decision point until such analysis has 
occurred and has been reported to the congressional defense 
committees not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.
    The committee expects the AOA to evaluate the operational 
effectiveness and affordability of system alternatives that 
satisfy the Army's needs for a primary small arms weapon 
system, highlighting the relationship between cost, schedule, 
and performance. The committee believes this AOA should include 
commercial off-the-shelf solutions, solutions requiring minimal 
developmental efforts, and current programs of record. The 
committee expects that for each alternative, the analysis would 
detail implications for doctrine, organizations, training, 
leadership and education, personnel, and facilities.
    The committee understands the objective of the IC program 
is to procure and field a carbine that can achieve greater 
accuracy, lethality, and reliability than the existing M4 
carbine, while also providing better ergonomics, and use 
current accessory items or accessory items with like-
capabilities. The committee notes that this program could 
potentially be worth over $1.0 billion and could replace all M4 
carbines in the current inventory. Because of the value and 
significance of this program, the committee believes an 
analysis of alternatives is required before any production 
decision is made.
    The committee is also aware that the Army is initiating a 
competitive product improvement program (PIP) as a near-term 
solution for system upgrades to the M4 carbine and encourages 
the Secretary of the Army to consider these product 
improvements as part of the required AOA. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider evaluating 
commercial-off-the-shelf solutions as part of any PIP solution.

    Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ohio-class 
            Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program

    This section would contain four findings concerning the 
number of submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers 
(missile tubes) planned for the Ohio-class ballistic missile 
submarine (SSBN) replacement, the composition of the deployed 
nuclear deterrent force of the United States planned under the 
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), and recent 
testimony by the commander of the United States Strategic 
Command.
    This section would express a sense of Congress that:
          (1) The long-term ability of the United States to 
        maintain a nuclear force sufficient to address the 
        range of mission requirements necessary to deter, 
        dissuade, and defeat potential adversaries and assure 
        allies and partners must not be comprised solely on the 
        basis of the promise of potential cost savings 
        resulting from the Department's decision to reduce the 
        planned number of missile tubes per Ohio-class 
        ballistic missile submarine from 24 to 16; and
          (2) The planned Ohio-class ballistic submarine 
        replacement is expected to be in operations through 
        2080 and therefore near-term design decisions should 
        take into consideration uncertainties in the future 
        threat and strategic environment.
    This section would also limit the obligation and 
expenditure of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise 
made available for fiscal year 2012 for the Ohio-class 
ballistic missile submarine replacement program to not more 
than 90 percent until the Secretary of Defense submits to the 
congressional defense committees a report summarizing the 
analysis that supported the Department's decision to reduce the 
planned number of missile tubes per submarine to 16. Reporting 
elements would include: a description of the assumed threat and 
strategic environment throughout the expected operational 
lifetime of the program; a description of any assumptions 
regarding changes in nuclear policy and strategy, and further 
nuclear reductions; an identification of any missions or 
requirements that may have increased risk; and a summary of the 
cost comparison between 16 and 20 missile tube designs, 
including the accuracy of the cost estimate.
    Over the course of the last year, the committee has 
received inconsistent information on the number of missile 
tubes per hull planned for the Ohio-class ballistic missile 
submarine replacement. In a May 13, 2010, report to Congress, 
required by section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the President 
outlined his SSBN force structure plans: ``The Secretary of 
Defense, based on recommendations from the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, has established a baseline nuclear force structure that 
fully supports U.S. security requirements and conforms to the 
New START limits. . . . The United States will reduce the 
number of SLBM launchers (launch tubes) from 24 to 20 per SSBN, 
and deploy no more than 240 SLBMs at any time.'' These plans 
for 20 missile tubes per SSBN were reaffirmed in the joint 
Department of Energy and Department of Defense February 16, 
2011, update to the report required by section 1251. However, 
on January 10, 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued an acquisition 
decision memorandum for the Ohio-class submarine replacement 
program whereby the Navy received milestone A approval to 
proceed with a design based on 16 missile tubes.
    The committee remains unclear as to the analysis and 
assumptions that informed the Department's decision to reduce 
the planned number of missile tubes per SSBN from 24 to 16, and 
the rationale for its deviation from the baseline force 
structure of 20 missile tubes per SSBN outlined in the report 
required by section 1251, other than the promise of potential 
cost savings. The committee seeks to hold the Department 
accountable to providing it with such information.

Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Amphibious Assault 
                      Vehicles of the Marine Corps

    This section would limit the obligation of funds committed 
for the amphibious assault vehicle until the Secretary of 
Defense meets certain requirements.
    The committee notes that the budget request contained no 
funds for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and that the 
Department is terminating the program. The committee continues 
to be frustrated with the lack of transparency by the 
Department, and its failure to inform Congress prior to making 
major weapons systems decisions that have significant national 
security implications. The committee agrees with the June 5, 
2007, Nunn-McCurdy recertification letter submitted to 
Congress, which stated there are no options other than a 
restructured EFV program that could provide equal or greater 
military capability at less cost. The recertification letter 
also stated that initiating a new start program would increase 
operational risk due to further delayed deliveries, and 
pursuing an upgraded Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), while 
entailing lower cost, would provide less military capability 
due to the slow speed of the AAV. In addition, the 
recertification letter stated that the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Committee (JROC) affirmed the need for a high-speed 
amphibious assault capability. The EFV's ability to accelerate 
until the vehicle moves along the top of the water is what gave 
it the capability to reach speeds in excess of 25 knots.
    The Department briefed the committee on its rationale for 
termination of the EFV program on April 7, 2011. The committee 
remains concerned that the Department failed to conduct the 
proper analysis prior to making the decision to terminate the 
EFV program. The committee has yet to see the detailed analysis 
that would show one way or the other whether or not other 
alternatives may have been a more efficient solution rather 
than terminating the EFV program. The committee questions the 
Department's assumptions behind the decision to change the 
deployment distance from 25 nautical miles to 12 nautical 
miles. In addition, the committee believes that the Marine's 
combat effectiveness will be negatively impacted as a result of 
potential motion sickness stemming from riding in an amphibious 
assault vehicle that is not up on plane for long periods of 
time. The current AAV is launched from approximately 2 nautical 
miles and can travel up to 6 knots in ideal sea state 
conditions. During the April 7 briefing, the committee was told 
that an upgraded AAV might be able to reach 10 knots and that 
the speed requirement for the follow-on effort to the EFV, the 
Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), would be somewhere in the 
vicinity of 14 knots. The committee notes that a replacement 
vehicle to the EFV would have to go 16 or 17 knots in order to 
accelerate until the vehicle moves along the top of the water. 
The committee is concerned that although no analysis has yet to 
be completed, the Department has determined that it does not 
have a high-speed water requirement as validated by the JROC in 
2007.
    The committee is concerned by what it believes is the 
Department's current plan to spend approximately $3.0 billion 
to upgrade the current AAV for it to go from a max speed of 6 
knots to 10 knots, travel and then spend an additional $6.0 to 
$7.0 billion on the ACV so that it can travel up to 14 knots. 
The committee is concerned that the Department may not be able 
afford both a comprehensive upgrade to the AAV, and a new start 
ACV program. The committee believes that a more affordable plan 
would be minor upgrades that are focused on survivability to 
the current AAV, which would allow the Department to focus its 
remaining resources on the ACV program. The committee 
encourages the Department to develop an acquisition strategy 
that would produce the ACV program within approximately 5 years 
upon new start approval.

   Section 215--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Propulsion 
           System for the F-35 Lightning II Aircraft Program

    This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
funds for performance improvements to the F-35 Lightning II 
propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense ensures the 
competitive development and production of such propulsion 
system. This section would define the term ``performance 
improvement,'' with respect to the propulsion system for the F-
35 Lightning II aircraft program, as an increase in fan or core 
engine airflow volume or maximum thrust in military or 
afterburner setting for the primary purpose of improving the 
take-off performance or vertical load bring back of such 
aircraft, and would not include development or procurement 
improvements with respect to weight, acquisition cost, 
operations and support costs, durability, manufacturing 
efficiencies, observability requirements, or repair costs.

 Section 216--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Joint Replacement 
                              Fuze Program

    This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of 
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
for fiscal year 2012 for the Air Force for the joint/common 
replacement fuze program for Air Force and Navy nuclear 
warheads to not more than 75 percent until the Secretary of 
Defense submits a report to the congressional defense 
committees on the feasibility of the program. The committee 
notes that an ongoing Air Force effort to modernize fuzes on 
the Mk21 reentry vehicle through a depot refurbishment program 
experienced significant schedule delays. A review of this 
refurbishment program indicates that the Air Force failed to 
conduct a feasibility study to determine whether the depot had 
the expertise and capability to perform the refurbishment.
    The committee understands that the Air Force and Navy are 
pursuing a joint/common replacement fuze program for both 
intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missile 
reentry vehicles. The committee applauds their efforts to seek 
efficiencies and share lessons learned through such a program. 
However, the committee seeks to ensure that all stakeholders 
have developed a full understanding of the feasibility of the 
proposed replacement program before full development proceeds, 
and avoid the pitfalls experienced in the Air Force 
refurbishment program.

 Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Joint Space 
                  Operations Center Management System

    This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
for fiscal year 2012 for release one of the Joint Space 
Operations Center Management System (JMS) until the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
and the Secretary of the Air Force jointly provide to the 
congressional defense committees the acquisition strategy for 
JMS, to include a description of the acquisition policies and 
procedures applicable to JMS and any additional acquisition 
authorities that may be necessary.
    This section would also express a sense of Congress that 
improvements to U.S. space situational awareness and space 
command and control capabilities are necessary, and the 
traditional defense acquisition process is not optimal for 
developing the services oriented architecture and net-centric 
environment planned for JMS.

     Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Wireless 
                            Innovation Fund

    This section would prohibit the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency from obligating more than 10 percent of the 
funds available for fiscal year 2012 for the Wireless 
Innovation Fund until the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provides a report on how 
the fund will be managed and executed.

    Section 219--Advanced Rotorcraft Flight Research and Development

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
conduct a program for flight research and demonstration of 
advanced helicopter technology in accordance with section 
2226(f)(3) of title 10, United States Code.
    Section 220--Designation of Main Propulsion System of the 
Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Bomber Aircraft as Major 
Subprogram
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
designate the main propulsion system of the next-generation 
long-range strike bomber aircraft as a major subprogram and 
would require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a 
competitive acquisition strategy for the propulsion system.

  Section 221--Designation of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System 
        Development and Procurement Program as Major Subprogram

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
designate the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) as 
a major subprogram of the CVN-78 Ford-class aircraft carrier 
major defense acquisition program within 30 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act. A major subprogram is defined in 
section 2430a of title 10, United States Code.
    The committee is aware that EMALS is progressing through 
its land-based testing. However, earlier problems in 
development have reduced almost all schedule margin in order to 
make the date the equipment must be in the shipyard for 
installation in the first ship of the class. The committee 
acknowledges elevating EMALS to a major subprogram will provide 
the proper oversight to this critical system as it continues 
its development and production.

   Section 222--Prohibition on Delegation of Budgeting Authority for 
               Certain Research and Educational Programs

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
delegating the authority for programming or budgeting of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions program to 
an individual outside the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

 Section 223--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Future Unmanned 
                      Carrier-based Strike System

    This section would limit obligation of fiscal year 2012 
FUCSS funds to no more than 15 percent until 60 days after the 
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development and Acquisition submit certain certifications 
regarding the acquisition of FUCSS to the congressional defense 
committees. This provision would also require the Comptroller 
General of the United States to provide the congressional 
defense committees a briefing, subsequent to a review of the 
Navy's FUCSS acquisition strategy, no later than 90 days after 
the date on which the aforementioned Department of Defense 
officials submit the certain certifications to the 
congressional defense committees.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


   Section 231--Acquisition Accountability Reports on the Ballistic 
                         Missile Defense System

    This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a new section 225 that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain an acquisition 
baseline for each program element and designated subprogram 
element of the ballistic missile defense system before the 
program or subprogram enters engineering and manufacturing 
development, and production and deployment.
    This section would incorporate and expand upon annual 
reporting requirements established in section 225 of the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383), to include reporting on schedules and 
milestones, acquisition quantities, requirements, technical 
capabilities, cost estimates, and test plans. Additionally, 
this section would repeal section 225 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 
section 223(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and section 221 of the 
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003 (Public Law 107-314), to reduce duplication in missile 
defense reporting requirements.

 Section 232--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Medium Extended 
                           Air Defense System

    This section would express the sense of Congress on the 
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). This section would 
also provide a limitation that no funds made available in 
fiscal year 2012 for MEADS may be obligated or expended until 
the Secretary of Defense either negotiates a multilateral 
termination of the MEADS contract or restructures the MEADS 
program, and ensures that specific deliverables will be 
transitioned to a program of record by September 30, 2013.
    This limitation would also require the Secretary of Defense 
to submit written notification to the congressional defense 
committees on several elements, including: MEADS termination 
costs or program restructure costs; the program schedule and 
specific deliverables; the specific technologies to be 
harvested and the plans for transitioning such technologies to 
a current program of record; and how the Secretary plans to 
address the Department's air and missile defense requirements 
in the absence of a fielded MEADS capability, including a 
summary of the activities, and cost estimate and funding 
profile, necessary to sustain and upgrade the Patriot air and 
missile defense system.
    In a Department of Defense MEADS fact sheet, dated February 
14, 2011, and subsequent Medium Extended Air Defense System 
Report to Congress, dated March 18, 2011, the Department 
concluded that the completion of MEADS design and development 
(D&D) would require an additional $2.0 billion, of which the 
U.S. Government's share would be $1.2 billion, and extend the 
schedule by 30 months at a minimum. The Department of Defense 
estimated that an additional $800.0 million would be required 
to complete U.S.-unique certification, test, and evaluation 
requirements, and integration. Therefore, the Department of 
Defense concluded that, ``The U.S. cannot afford to purchase 
MEADS and make required upgrades to Patriot concurrently over 
the next two decades,'' and decided to complete a proof of 
concept effort, which is scheduled to be completed by 2014, 
using the remaining D&D funds agreed to in a 2004 memorandum of 
understanding. The Department argues that this effort would put 
the D&D program on stable footing should the Italian Republic 
and the Federal Republic of Germany wish to continue MEADS 
development and production, although the U.S. has decided not 
to pursue MEADS procurement and production. The budget request 
contained $804.0 million across fiscal years 2012-13 for the 
U.S. share of the proof of concept effort.
    The committee is concerned about authorizing significant 
funds for a program that the Department does not intend to 
procure, and whose record of performance, according to the 
February 14, 2011 Department of Defense fact sheet, ``might 
ordinarily make it a candidate for cancellation.'' 
Additionally, the committee lacks confidence that the proof of 
concept would result in viable prototypes and demonstrated 
capabilities. The Chief of Staff of the Army testified before 
the committee in March 2011 that he is ``not convinced'' the 
MEADS proof of concept is viable.
    Rather than focus on a proof of concept effort, the 
committee believes the Department should immediately identify 
and harvest promising MEADS technologies, whether U.S. or 
partner-developed, and transition those technologies into a 
Patriot air and missile defense system upgrade effort or other 
viable program of record. The committee understands that the 
Department must now sustain the Patriot system longer than 
previously planned and expects the Department to provide its 
plans for sustaining and upgrading the system. Several 
countries in the Middle East, Europe, and East Asia operate 
Patriot systems. The committee believes a Patriot system 
upgrade effort that includes promising MEADS technologies may 
benefit not only the U.S., but many other countries with 
Patriot systems.
    In conjunction with the Department's Patriot sustainment 
and upgrade plans, the committee expects the Department to 
develop a cost estimate and funding profile for such plans and 
to include those funds in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
    The committee is aware that the Department's maximum 
termination liability is approximately $846.0 million should it 
unilaterally terminate the MEADS contract. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Department to pursue multilateral 
termination options to lower the contract termination liability 
belonging to the United States.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a 
reduction to the fiscal year 2012 budget request for MEADS on 
the premise that the Department is able to negotiate a 
multilateral contract termination or further restructure the 
program.
    Lastly, the committee wants to make clear its support for 
international missile defense cooperation, and encourages the 
Department to continue to pursue cooperative missile defense 
activities that are affordable and benefit the security of all 
parties.

       Section 233--Homeland Defense Hedging Policy and Strategy

    This section would make it the policy of the United States 
to develop and maintain a hedging strategy to provide 
protection of the United States:
          (1) If the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) 
        threat from the Middle East materializes earlier than 
        2020, or technical challenges or schedule delays affect 
        the availability of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIB 
        interceptor planned for fielding in Europe by 2020 to 
        protect the United States as part of phase 4 of the 
        President's phased, adaptive approach;
          (2) If the ICBM threat from East Asia materializes 
        more rapidly than expected;
          (3) That improves or enhances the protection of the 
        United States beyond the ground-based midcourse defense 
        capabilities currently deployed for the defense of the 
        United States; and
          (4) That includes plans for ensuring that hedging 
        capabilities are suitable to perform the assigned 
        mission, operationally effective, and use technologies 
        that are sufficiently matured and tested prior to 
        fielding.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees the Department 
of Defense's homeland defense hedging strategy by December 5, 
2011, or the date on which the Secretary completes the 
development of such strategy, whichever comes earlier.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
currently developing a hedging strategy for the protection of 
the U.S. homeland, to include continued development and 
assessment of a two-stage ground-based interceptor as noted in 
the February 2010 Department of Defense Ballistic Missile 
Defense Review. The committee notes that during testimony 
before the committee on October 1, 2009, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy stated, ''we keep the development of the 
two-stage [ground-based interceptor] on the books as a hedge in 
case things come earlier, in case there's any kind of 
technological challenge with the later models of the [Standard 
Missile-3].'' This section would clarify and expand such 
policy.

           Section 234--Ground-based Midcourse Defense System

    This section contains five findings concerning the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, including recent 
intercept flight test failures, its role in protecting the U.S. 
homeland, reductions in the President's budget request for GMD, 
schedule delays resulting from the flight-test failures and 
Missile Defense Agency operations before the Department of 
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
(Public Law 112-10) was enacted, and additional ground-based 
interceptors (GBI).
    Additionally, this section would express the sense of 
Congress that the GMD system is currently the only missile 
defense system that protects the U.S. homeland from long-range 
ballistic missile threats.
    This section would further require the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees a plan by the 
Director, Missile Defense Agency to address the GMD flight-test 
failures, including the schedule and additional resources 
necessary to implement the plan. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to provide written 
certification that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 
has thoroughly investigated the root cause of the flight-test 
failures, and that the plan, schedule, resources, and 
prioritization for implementation of corrective measures are 
sufficient.

        Section 235--Study on Space-based Interceptor Technology

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study examining the technical and operational 
considerations associated with developing and operating a 
limited space-based interceptor (SBI) capability and submit a 
report on such study to the congressional defense committees 
within one year of enactment of the Act. The study would be 
required to include an identification of the technical risks, 
gaps, and constraints associated with developing and operating 
such a capability; an assessment of the maturity levels of 
various related technologies; the key knowledge, research, and 
testing that would be needed for any nation to develop and 
operate an effective SBI capability; and the estimated 
effectiveness and cost of potential options for developing and 
operating an SBI capability, including their effectiveness in 
conjunction with existing and planned terrestrially-based 
missile defense systems. Of the funds authorized to be 
appropriated by the Act for ballistic missile defense 
technology, this section would require the Secretary to 
obligate or expend $8.0 million on the study and report. The 
report submitted to Congress would be required to be in 
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


 Section 241--Annual Comptroller General Report on the KC-46A Aircraft 
                          Acquisition Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct an annual review of the KC-46A 
aircraft acquisition program and provide the results of that 
review to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2012, and annually thereafter through 2017.

    Section 242--Independent Review and Assessment of Cryptographic 
                         Modernization Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an independent assessment of the cryptographic 
modernization program for the Department of Defense and submit 
a report to Congress by March 1, 2012.

 Section 243--Report on Feasibility of Electromagnetic Rail Gun System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committee within 
180 days after the enactment of this Act in the feasibility of 
developing and deploying the electromagnetic rail gun system to 
be used for either land- or ship-based force protection.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Section 251--Repeal of Requirement for Technology Transition Initiative

    This section would repeal section 2359a of title 10, United 
States Code effective October 1, 2012.

 Section 252--Preservation and Storage of Certain Property Related to 
                         F136 Propulsion System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and carry out a plan for the preservation and storage 
of property owned by the Federal Government that was acquired 
under the F136 propulsion system development contract that 
would: ensure that the Secretary preserves and stores such 
property in a manner that would allow the development of the 
F136 propulsion system to be restarted after a period of 
idleness, provide for the long-term sustainment and repair of 
such property, and allow for such preservation and storage to 
be conducted at either the facilities of the Federal Government 
or a contractor under such contract; identify supplier base 
costs of restarting development; ensure that the Secretary, at 
no cost to the Federal Government, provides support and allows 
for the use of such property by the contractor under such 
contract to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation 
of the F136 engine, if such activities are self-funded by the 
contractor; and identify any contract modifications, additional 
facilities or funding that the Secretary determines necessary 
to carry out the plan. This section would also prohibit the 
obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise make available for fiscal 
year 2012 for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
Navy, or research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force, 
for the F-35 Lightning II program for activities related to 
destroying or disposing of the property acquired under the F136 
propulsion system development contract. Additionally, this 
section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committee, not later than 
45 days after the enactment of the Act, on the Secretary's plan 
for the preservation and storage of such property.

Section 253--Extension of Authority for Mechanism to Provide Funds for 
 Defense Laboratories for Research and Development of Technologies for 
                           Military Missions

    This section would amend Section 219 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-317; 122 Stat. 4389; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note), as amended 
by subsection 2801(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2660) by 
striking ``October 1, 2013'' and inserting ``September 30, 
2016''.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $259.8 billion in operation 
and maintenance (O&M) funds to provide for the training, 
deployment, and sustainment of U.S. military forces. The fiscal 
year 2012 O&M request includes $170.8 million in the base 
budget; approximately 34 percent of the total request is for 
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This is an 8 percent 
decrease from the fiscal year 2011 request, with reductions in 
funding for the operations in the Republic of Iraq accounting 
for the majority of the decrease.
    While deployed Army forces have, in most cases, the 
equipment, personnel, and training they require for their 
missions, this deployed readiness has come at the continued 
expense of non-
deployed Army units. The committee remains concerned about the 
number of non-deployed units reporting that they are not ready 
for combat operations, or would need additional time and 
equipment to prepare for deployment. Restoring equipment 
readiness is a key element of the Army reset process. The 
fiscal year 2012 budget request moves an increasing share of 
the enduring depot maintenance requirements back to the base 
budget, providing funds for the restoration of equipment, 
damaged or worn out by nearly 10 years of constant operations, 
back to a level of combat readiness. The Army has increased 
funding for home-station full spectrum training, reflecting 
anticipated increases in training tempo as the Army commits 
fewer units to combat operations. However, the Army has 
transitioned its methodology for identifying training 
requirements and resource allocations and is using the term 
``Full Spectrum Training Mile'' as a metric. The committee is 
concerned that this metric may not be the best tool for gauging 
operations tempo and content of training.
    In Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 
Operation New Dawn, the Air Force has committed more than 370 
aircraft to support combat operations and has been flying more 
than 410 sorties per day in the U.S. Central Command area of 
responsibility. Detrimental effects on equipment as a result of 
high operations tempo include engine and structural fatigue, 
deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of component 
failures. The increased tempo also delays routine maintenance. 
Of the 5,500 aircraft inventory, 2.1 percent are either 
grounded or restricted. As a result, the committee is concerned 
that the Air Force has experienced significant shortfalls in 
depot maintenance in its baseline program for Active and 
Reserve forces which have been made up only through Overseas 
Contingency Operations funding. Like the Army, the Air Force's 
next-to-deploy forces are reporting high levels of readiness, 
but this comes at the increasing expense of the non-deployed 
forces that experience fewer opportunities to train with a full 
complement of personnel and equipment. In addition, even with 
the ongoing drawdown in the Republic of Iraq, the Air Force 
intends to continue assigning airmen to joint expeditionary 
tasks because of mission requirements in the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan.
    Despite the drawdown in Iraq, naval operations tempo is 
expected to remain high, as demand for the Navy's services is 
up, including anti-piracy and ballistic missile defense 
operations, as well as operations in support of U.S. Africa 
Command, U.S. Pacific Command, individual augmentees in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the Arctic region. The budget 
request for naval flight operations provides increased funds to 
support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including 
significant increases to a realignment of funding for Fleet 
Replacement Squadrons and Chief of Naval Air Training to 
consolidate all Navy and Marine Corps flight training and 
tactical resources into a single budget activity. However, the 
Navy's flying hour program only funds the Fleet Replacement 
Squadrons at 88 percent of the requirement. The Navy's base 
budget also funds 45 underway days per quarter for deployed 
forces and 20 underway days per quarter for non-deployed 
forces, as it did in fiscal year 2011. These levels are below 
the Navy's peacetime readiness requirements based on the 
continuing assumption that overseas contingency operations will 
reduce training and routine deployment opportunities.
    The Marine Corps recently concluded a Force Posture Review 
that emphasized ``rebalancing'' the Marine Corps to better 
``focus on future contingencies.'' As such, the fiscal year 
2012 budget request reflects some initial investments in 
special skill sets needed to move the Marine Corps toward a 
force more fully attuned to the lessons learned during nine 
years of combat. The top line for Marine Corps O&M decreased 
slightly, mostly attributable to a reduction in equipment 
maintenance as a result of the shifting of equipment that was 
scheduled to return from Iraq for depot-level repair to 
Afghanistan in support of combat operations. The committee is 
concerned about the level and composition of prepositioned 
stocks and the Navy's proposal to retrograde two prepositioned 
Maritime Support Program vessels to Jacksonville, Florida, in a 
reduced status.
    The committee commends the Department of Defense for 
increasing its emphasis and resources regarding energy security 
requirements. Diversification of the energy supply is a 
national security imperative and the Department is leading 
change as the consumer of approximately 80 percent of the total 
Federal energy usage. The Department has made great strides to 
become more energy efficient, reduce its energy consumption, 
and supplement with alternative energy technology both on 
installations and in contingency operations. Through multiple 
fiscal year 2012 investments such as the Energy Conservation 
Investment Program, the Installation Energy Test Bed, and the 
Operational Energy Capability Improvement program, the 
Department is focusing on energy security for assured access to 
power for the military services. The committee has taken great 
strides in this year's bill to ensure energy projects provide 
an appropriate return on investment.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                       Budget Request Adjustments


               Flight Simulator Training Hour Restoration

    As part of the Department of Defense's efficiencies 
initiative, the budget request cut the Army Guard and Air Force 
Active and Reserve Components flying hours program for training 
with the intent that simulators would be used to backfill the 
training requirements.
    The committee recommends restoring the reduction to the 
flying hours program for the training of the Army Guard and Air 
Force Reserve Components. The committee is concerned that the 
reduction was levied on the Reserve Components without 
considering their lack of access to the high-fidelity, 
networked simulators that are resident in the active Army and 
Air Force.

           Marine Corps Expeditionary Forward Operating Base

    The budget request included no funds for the Marine Corps 
Expeditionary Forward Operating Base (ExFOB). Due to its 
demonstrated success in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
the committee recommends $9.0 million specifically for the 
ExFOB to fund future phases of the program. The committee 
recommends $414.4 million, an increase of $9.0 million, for 
Operations and Maintenance Marine Corps, specifically for the 
Marine Corps ExFOB.

               Operational Energy Capability Improvement

    The budget request contained $20.4 million for Operational 
Energy Capability Improvement. The committee recognizes the 
significant contribution this program will make in 
demonstrating energy reduction technologies and process in 
contingency operations. The committee recommends $30.4 million, 
an increase of $10.0 million, for Operational Energy Capability 
Improvement.

                Strategic Environmental Research Program

    The budget request contained $15.0 million for the 
Strategic Environmental Research Program. The committee 
recognizes that the Installation Energy Test Bed invests in 
innovative technologies that will benefit most Department of 
Defense installations and result in increased energy security 
and decreased energy consumption. The committee recommends 
$45.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for the 
Installation Energy Test Bed in the Strategic Environmental 
Research Program.

                             Energy Issues


                         Energy-Efficient Tires

    The Department of Defense is taking significant action to 
reduce energy consumption. As tires get replaced in the 
Department of Defense's fleet vehicles, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider replacement 
tires with a low rolling resistance as one method of reducing 
fuel consumption.

           Navy Green Fleet Initiative Including Harbor Tugs

    The committee recognizes the advancements the Navy is 
making to reduce energy consumption. The Secretary of the Navy 
set a goal to deploy a ``Great Green Fleet'' of vessels powered 
entirely by alternative fuels by 2016. The committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the House 
Committee on Armed Services on the Navy's plan to include the 
Service Craft fleet as part of the Navy's ``Great Green Fleet'' 
and include plans to test and certify alternative fuels on this 
fleet, specifically on the Yard Tug class vessels, by December 
31, 2011.

     Support of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 
                 Operational Energy Plans and Programs

    The committee is encouraged by the good work accomplished 
to date in the newly established Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs 
(OEPP). Approximately 75 percent of the Department of Defense's 
energy use is operational energy, and the OEPP has been the 
driving force behind reducing defense spending in this area. 
While the Department of Defense continues its efficiency 
reviews, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
give special consideration to the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs 
to ensure it is able to continue necessary hiring actions and 
to support its critical missions.

                    Logistics and Sustainment Issues


               Aircraft Landing Gear Systems Sustainment

    The committee is aware that aircraft landing gear systems 
are one of the more critical and complex subsystems on an 
aircraft. The system consists of complex structures, actuators, 
wheels, brakes, tires, steering, and anti-skid systems. The 
structural components are non-redundant flight safety critical 
items designed for the absolute minimum weight and size 
necessary to perform their critical functions. The committee 
notes that it is not unusual to have critical crack sizes that 
are below the threshold necessary for detection and mitigation 
techniques used for other aircraft structures. As a result of 
these unique and challenging design constraints, aircraft 
landing gear systems are typically leading drivers of aircraft 
accidents and mishaps. The committee recognizes that many 
landing gear technical issues are common for heavyweight or 
lightweight aircraft, and the U.S. Air Force Landing Gear 
Engineering Group has excellent engineering insight into 
festering problems before they result in catastrophic mishaps. 
The committee encourages the U.S. Air Force to ensure that best 
practices are in place, including any recommendations from the 
Landing Gear Engineering Group, and that the service is 
proactive, not reactive, in the prevention of catastrophic 
failures.

              Department-Wide Depot Workforce Development

    The committee has been made aware that the maintenance 
depots supporting the military services are no longer able to 
sustain certain cooperative training programs designed to 
develop the future depot workforce. The committee is concerned 
that maintenance depots are not being properly funded for these 
cooperative training programs which are intended to enable the 
maintenance depots to meet future workforce requirements.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the 
military departments to develop and begin executing integrated 
workforce development plans for their respective maintenance 
depots, and to submit to the congressional defense committees 
copies of their respective plans within one year after the date 
of enactment of this Act. Specifically, the plans should 
emphasize apprenticeship opportunities, encourage flexibility 
in hiring to allow the new trainees to shift across the 
maintenance depots to better structure the workforce to meet 
future reset and depot maintenance workloads, and provide 
adequate resources to sustain essential training activities.

          Improved Corrosion Prevention and Control Practices

    In its report, ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential 
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars and 
Enhance Revenue'' (GAO-11-318SP) the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) stated that, ``The Department of Defense estimates 
that corrosion costs the department over $23 billion each 
year.'' To target funding toward corrosion prevention and 
control, the Department established a separate program element 
and line item in the budget request. The Department of Defense 
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight uses much of the funds 
for projects designed by the military departments to develop 
and test new technologies, currently costing up to $0.5 million 
per project. During the 6 years that the Department of Defense 
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight has been funding 
corrosion projects, the average estimated return on investment 
for those projects has been 50-to-1. GAO reported that the 
Department of Defense is currently asking the military 
departments to validate the actual return on investment for the 
projects funded in fiscal year 2005 compared to the original 
estimates. To date, validations have been completed for 10 of 
the 28 corrosion projects funded in fiscal year 2005.
    If the corrosion prevention and control projects accepted 
from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2010 had been fully 
funded, GAO reported that the Department potentially could have 
avoided $3.6 billion in corrosion-related costs, assuming those 
projects achieved the same level of cost-effectiveness as was 
estimated for all accepted projects in those years. In April 
2010, GAO reported that the corrosion requirements for the 
fiscal year 2011 budget request identified $12.0 million for 
projects, leaving an unfunded requirement of about $35.0 
million. If fully funded, that $35.0 million could result in a 
potential cost avoidance of $418.0 million. Similarly, by 
underfunding all of its estimated corrosion prevention and 
control requirements, GAO stated that the Department may be 
missing an opportunity for additional cost avoidance totaling 
$1.4 billion.
    GAO noted that these calculations are highly contingent on 
the accuracy of estimated return on investment data provided by 
the Department of Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight, and most of these calculations have not been 
validated by the military departments or an independent entity. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to fund the 
Department of Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight 
sufficiently to ensure that return on investment estimates for 
funded corrosion prevention and control projects are validated. 
Additionally, in order to maximize available resources, the 
committee encourages the Department to take full advantage of 
corrosion analysis networks that provide the best available 
data and expertise for researching, understanding, controlling, 
preventing, predicting, and solving corrosion-related problems.

Increased Competition for the Operation and Sustainment of Major Weapon 
                                Systems

    The committee continues to support competition throughout 
the lifecycle of a weapon system and is concerned that although 
the Weapon Systems Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) calls 
for increased competition in the sustainment of major weapon 
systems, the military departments are not aggressively pursuing 
opportunities to foster and promote competition. Congressional 
guidance has been unambiguous on the need for increasing 
competition to reduce costs and improve contractor efficiency, 
yet high aggregate percentages of sustainment workload and 
parts continue to be contracted through sole-source 
arrangements.
    Furthermore, the committee has repeatedly called for 
fostering competition in life-cycle sustainment to include 
competition for new parts, repair parts, and touch labor 
associated with overhauls and maintenance. Section 805 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) requires the Secretary of Defense to implement 
product support strategies for major weapon systems and to 
leverage both industry and Department of Defense Centers of 
Industrial and Technical Excellence to achieve competition, 
performance, and cost savings. Section 805 further stipulates 
that product support managers should maximize competition at 
the system, subsystem, and component levels. Despite this 
guidance, the committee is aware that the military departments 
continue sole-source relationships with original equipment 
manufacturers even when other qualified suppliers exist, 
foregoing potential savings that could total in the billions of 
dollars.
    In one such case, the Air Force persists in maintaining a 
sole-source relationship for sustainment of C-17 engines, which 
are 91 percent common with commercial variants that have many 
certified parts suppliers and sustainment contractors. 
According to Air Force Materiel Command documents, the engine-
related portion of aircraft sustainment falls between 25 and 35 
percent of the total sustainment cost of the aircraft. By 
introducing competition for sustainment of commercial-
derivative engines, the committee believes the Air Force could 
see estimated cost savings of as much as 30 percent. This would 
equate to more than $2.0 billion in annual savings if applied 
across the Air Force's inventory of commercial derivative 
engines. In the current budget-constrained fiscal environment, 
the committee believes the military departments should not pass 
up any opportunity to reap the benefits of competition at the 
system, subsystem and component levels. Therefore, the 
committee has included a provision elsewhere in this title that 
would amend section 202 of Public Law 111-23 to clarify the 
requirement for competition during life-cycle sustainment also 
shall include the subsystem and component levels.

                       Laser Peening Technologies

    The committee is aware that laser peening technology, a 
surface enhancement processing treatment for metals, has 
achieved considerable success in commercial aerospace and power 
generation applications, reducing costs by enabling 
improvements in the metal structure and mitigating high-cycle 
fatigue failures of a system, thus extending the system's 
lifetime. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
examine the potential cost savings that may be derived from 
adopting this technology broadly across the military services, 
particularly for use on engines, aircraft structures, land 
vehicles and weapon systems. The committee notes that this 
technology could reduce costs associated with problems of 
fatigue failure, stress corrosion cracking, and component shape 
corrections. The committee further notes that the cost savings 
derived from the use of laser peening technology could fund a 
wider deployment of the technology, with the goal of slowing 
the rate of replacement of highly stressed components and 
parts.

       Long-Term Corrosion Strategies of the Military Departments

    The committee is concerned that the military departments, 
by not aligning their corrosion control and prevention efforts 
with the Department of Defense Corrosion Prevention and 
Mitigation Strategic Plan, are incurring higher-than-necessary 
life-cycle costs for military equipment sustainment. Therefore, 
the committee directs the corrosion control and prevention 
executive (CCPE) of each military department to develop a long-
term strategy for addressing corrosion prevention and control 
within the military departments by April 1, 2012. The military 
department's strategy should support the existing Department of 
Defense-level strategy published by the Director of Corrosion 
Policy and Oversight.
    The military department's strategy should include all areas 
of responsibility for the CCPE as described in section 2228 of 
title 10, United States Code. The military department's CCPE 
should coordinate the long-term strategy with the Department of 
Defense Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to assure 
consistency with overarching Department of Defense strategies 
and conformity to Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67. 
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to evaluate the long-term strategies developed by 
the military departments' CCPEs for adherence to section 2228 
of title 10, United States Code, for consistency with 
overarching Department of Defense strategies, and for 
conformity to Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67, and 
report on the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and House Committee on Armed Services by July 1, 2012.

                     Parts Supply Recapitalization

    The committee recognizes the need for the Department of 
Defense's supply chain to respond rapidly to changing threat 
environments with parts that are trusted, assured, reliable, 
and interoperable and ensure maximum logistics support of the 
warfighter. The committee is aware of commercial efforts 
involving precision manufacturing in conjunction with platform-
based engineering and system design and believes the Department 
could leverage commercial production technologies to improve 
supply chain management, streamline production, and ensure 
faster delivery of parts.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to 
consider the establishment of pilot programs, in partnership 
with industry, to demonstrate rapid, adaptable parts production 
systems with the following capabilities:
          (1) Surge capacity and the flexibility to respond 
        quickly to increased demand;
          (2) Increased speed to market and cost savings in the 
        procurement of machined parts;
          (3) Rapid adaptability to changing machine and 
        production environments; and
          (4) Cyber capabilities that mitigate overproduction 
        and counterfeiting.

          Study on Reducing Navy Small Boat Maintenance Costs

    The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy 
is not taking advantage of the prospective return on investment 
and reduced life-cycle sustainment costs that could be achieved 
through greater investment in corrosion control and prevention 
measures for the Navy's small boats. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study on 
strategies to reduce maintenance and repair costs associated 
with small boat storage and harboring and submit a report on 
the results to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by October 31, 2011. At a 
minimum, the study shall investigate the potential for reduced 
maintenance and repair costs of the Navy's small boat fleet 
through the use of advanced boat lift as well as storage and 
harboring equipment, including an evaluation and business case 
analysis of the impact of these strategies for potential 
improvements to small boat acquisition costs and life-cycle 
sustainment. In the report to the committee, the Secretary 
should include recommendations regarding the potential 
establishment of improved boat corrosion control and prevention 
as:
          (1) A key performance parameter for the selection of 
        boat maintenance and storage equipment;
          (2) A key performance parameter for sustainment;
          (3) A requirement for the Naval Sea Systems Command 
        to incorporate into its acquisition strategies prior to 
        issuing a solicitation for procurement contracts.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to assess the report submitted by the Secretary of the 
Navy for completeness, including the methodology used in the 
Navy's analysis. The Comptroller General should submit a report 
of the assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services within 60 days after the 
date the Secretary of the Navy delivers the study report to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

                          Sustainment Planning

    The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's 
successful use of modeling and cost-benefit analysis to support 
efficient logistics and sustainment and manage total life-cycle 
product support costs of the Navy's T-6, T-34, and T-45 
training aircraft. The committee notes that these efforts are 
in keeping with the goals of section 805 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) regarding life-cycle management and product support 
strategies for major weapon systems. Such tools apply a 
strategic decision analysis approach to the evaluation of 
multiple alternatives and quantitatively assess the impact of 
uncertainty to provide relevant insight into decision-making. 
The committee is particularly interested in the application of 
these predictive analytical tools to assist the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter program office in sustainment planning.
    In light of this proven modeling and analytical capability, 
the committee directs the assistant secretary of each military 
department with the responsibility for weapon system 
sustainment planning to review, using predictive analytical 
tools, current contractor logistics support (CLS) contracts to 
ensure that the appropriate source of repair is being used and 
is providing a cost savings to the taxpayer. The committee also 
directs the assistant secretaries concerned to require that 
future CLS contracts be assessed with the same tools prior to 
contract award.

                            Readiness Issues


 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Operational Considerations and Force 
                               Structure

    The committee recognizes the progress made by the 
Department of Defense to develop and field Aegis ballistic 
missile defense (BMD) capabilities. The committee, however, 
remains concerned about the force structure and inventory 
demands for Aegis ships resulting from the Phased Adaptive 
Approach (PAA) to missile defense in Europe, announced in 
September 2009, and the Department's plans to tailor the PAA to 
other geographic regions such as East Asia and the Middle East. 
As noted in the 2010 ``Ballistic Missile Defense Review,'' 
``the demand for missile defense assets within each region over 
the next decade will exceed supply.''
    In particular, the committee would like to further 
understand the concept of operations for Aegis BMD capabilities 
and how operational considerations affect Aegis BMD force 
structure. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
previously testified before the committee on October 1, 2009 
that when an Aegis ship is in missile defense mode, it 
``consumes all of the radar's activity,'' and a second ship is 
required for ship protection. Aegis BMD ships also support 
multiple missions such as maritime security, anti-submarine 
warfare, and surface warfare. While this multi-mission 
functionality provides flexibility and mobility, it may also 
place further force structure demands on the Aegis fleet and 
creates operational and performance tradeoffs for each ship. 
Additionally, as reported in June 2010, a Navy Fleet Review 
Panel assessment observed that Aegis SPY radar ``manpower, 
parts, training and performance are in decline'' and the 
decline in Aegis radar readiness may affect the Navy's ability 
to meet its missile defense mission requirements.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 
a report to the congressional defense committees, by December 
5, 2011, that assesses how operational requirements and 
considerations, such as force protection, other mission 
requirements, geographic trade-offs, and readiness and 
availability, affect the Aegis BMD concept of operations and 
the implications of such operational requirements and 
considerations on force structure required to support combatant 
commanders' missile defense missions. Similarly, such 
assessment should also address how the Navy balances its 
various mission requirements and the impact of missile defense 
requirements on its force structure demands and operational 
tempo. The assessment should also describe any recent Aegis BMD 
deployments, for example, to support the July 2009 Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea missile launches, and how 
operational requirements and considerations influenced the 
Aegis BMD force structure and concepts of operation to address 
the combatant commanders' mission requirements.

                 Army Unit Manning Effects on Readiness

    The committee recognizes the Army has struggled to maintain 
the readiness of its forces over the past decade and that 
personnel issues have continuously been one of the most 
important drivers of readiness.
    The committee is concerned about the Army's current 
shortage of warrant officers, certain enlisted specialties, and 
the growing burden of filling units as combat-related medical 
issues have increased the number of non-deployable personnel. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct an assessment of Army personnel 
readiness and submit a report on the findings to the 
congressional defense committees by February 28, 2012. At a 
minimum, the report should include:
          (1) A list of Army units that are reporting degraded 
        readiness;
          (2) An analysis of the extent to which the personnel 
        component of readiness is affecting overall readiness;
          (3) Army personnel strengths and how they are matched 
        to requirements;
          (4) Army policies and established business rules for 
        calculating personnel readiness;
          (5) The Army's processes for meeting manning goals 
        throughout the Army's force generation cycle; and
          (6) The extent to which the Army has developed plans 
        to address actual or projected unit manning shortages 
        for specific occupational specialties or pay grades.

    Distribution and Use of Bottled Water in Contingency Operations

    The committee is concerned that logistics convoys continue 
to be vulnerable to attack in contingency operations. Logistics 
convoys in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan provide delivery 
of fuel, bottled water, and other supplies to forward operating 
bases. According to the Marine Corps Energy Assessment Team in 
2009, hauling bottled water made up 51 percent of the 
logistical burden in Afghanistan. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to assess the impact of the distribution 
of and alternatives to bottled water in contingency operations 
and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
February 29, 2012, that includes the following:
          (1) The total quantity of bottled water that is 
        distributed by convoys in the Islamic Republic of 
        Afghanistan, and the associated cost with the purchase 
        and distribution of bottled water;
          (2) An assessment of the current water filtration 
        technologies including reverse osmosis systems 
        available, as well as those systems being developed to 
        support clean, filtered water with the necessary 
        minerals for forward operating bases;
          (3) An assessment of how the Department of Defense 
        will reduce its demand for bottled water while ensuring 
        access to clean, safe water for service members in the 
        Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
          (4) An assessment of how plastic waste is being 
        minimized and discarded, and what precautions are being 
        taken to prevent exposure to toxic fumes on forward 
        operating bases in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
        as a result of the destruction of plastic waste;
          (5) A cost assessment of the Fully Burdened Cost of 
        Water in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; and
          (6) An assessment of water purification plants 
        available for use by the United States military in the 
        Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

                        Federal Fire Protection

    The committee notes that a Department of Defense (DOD) 
Inspector General Report ``Fire Emergency and Services 
Program,'' (D-2003-121) found that staffing and apparatus 
shortfalls could adversely impact firefighter safety and 
installation missions. The committee is concerned that since 
that report was issued, conditions have not improved, and fire 
houses, personnel, and other fire suppression resources at 
military bases may be below minimal safety standards. In 
addition, the committee is concerned that not all the military 
departments may be fully compliant with the DOD Fire and 
Emergency Services Program (DOD Instruction 6055.06) which 
outlines policy and criteria for the allocation, assignment, 
operation, and administration of DOD fire departments and 
related fire prevention functions and establishes the DOD Fire 
and Emergency Services Quality Working Group. The committee 
believes it is imperative that military base commanders operate 
base fire departments at or above National Fire Protection 
Association standards as they apply to staffing, equipment, and 
other readiness capabilities.

               Installation Emergency Management Programs

    The committee is aware that Department of Defense 
Instruction 6055.17 establishes policy, assigns 
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for developing, 
implementing, and sustaining Installation Emergency Management 
(IEM) programs at Department of Defense installations 
worldwide. The committee understands that the intent of the IEM 
program is to provide a fully integrated emergency management 
capability to address ``all hazards'' including manmade or 
natural disasters, as well as the ability to interoperate with 
regional civilian emergency responders but is concerned that 
funding in the budget request for fiscal year 2012 is 
fragmented distributed in multiple budget elements. To prevent 
a funding approach that is potentially inadequate, the 
committee encourages the Department of Defense and the 
respective Secretaries of the military departments to consider 
centrally funding Installation Emergency Management under a 
single defense-wide funding line in future years.

 Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Instrument Landing System Replacement

    The committee is concerned that the Instrument Landing 
System (ILS) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, 
California, is an outdated MK-1F model that is no longer 
logistically supportable and is operating at its extreme 
tolerance for certification for usage within the National Air 
Space (NAS). The ILS is a critical safety of flight capability, 
without which MCAS Miramar could potentially lose its ability 
to operate as a designated aerial port of debarkation and 
embarkation for the military service and commercial aircraft 
traffic. A 2009 Marine Corps study found that, even with 
significant upgrades, the current ILS is no longer able to meet 
current Federal Aviation Administration ILS flight inspection 
requirements for NAS usage. Therefore, the committee encourages 
the Secretary of the Navy to identify funding options for a 
replacement ILS to mitigate the impacts to future air 
operations and to ensure aircrew safety.

Material Readiness of the Navy's Amphibious and Surface Combatant Ships

    In the 1990s, the Navy began implementing a number of 
initiatives that were designed to reduce costs associated with 
operating and manning its surface fleet. These initiatives 
included a shift from engineering maintenance cycles to 
condition-based maintenance cycles, reducing crew sizes, and 
moving to more computer-based training. However, over the past 
decade the Navy has increased its operational tempo as it has 
called upon its surface fleet to support overseas contingency 
operations while still retaining its traditional forward 
presence mission. The net effect of the increased pace of 
operations and decreased depot, intermediate, and 
organizational maintenance has been a decline in the material 
condition of some ships. This decline has been documented 
through periodic readiness reporting and other reports, such as 
the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). INSURV inspection 
results are a key indicator that the Navy uses to judge ship 
material readiness and offer an independent assessment.
    Based on the results of all these reports, the Navy 
launched a number of initiatives designed to better maintain 
the material conditions of its surface ships. Given the cost of 
new ships, and size of the current fleet relative to current 
and projected requirements, it is critical that the Navy's 
efforts to maintain its ships succeed and help its ships to 
meet or exceed their expected lifespan. The committee directs 
the Comptroller General of the United States to review the 
Navy's initiatives to improve the material condition of its 
surface ship fleet and report the results to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services. This review should focus on the Navy's amphibious 
ships, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. For each of these 
types/classes of ships, the Comptroller General should compare 
data on the actual material condition compared to the projected 
condition, considering information such as the following:
          (1) The projected service life when the first ship of 
        the class was designed or delivered;
          (2) The current age of the class;
          (3) The age at which any ships of the class were 
        decommissioned;
          (4) Any changes in maintenance policy for the class; 
        and
          (5) Any deferments of major availabilities.
    In addition, for a 2-year period starting March 2009, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) should assess the 
reported readiness of ships prior to and after undergoing 
INSURV inspections, as well as the INSURV results to identify 
any factors affecting the ships' ability to meet inspection 
requirements and to sustain the material condition of the ship 
following the INSURV. Finally, GAO should evaluate the extent 
to which the Navy's initiatives, including those stemming from 
the Department of Defense's efficiency initiative, address any 
of these underlying factors, and determine whether the Navy has 
established metrics to gauge improvements in the material 
condition of the ship types identified for this report.

                      Modified Tables of Equipment

    The committee is concerned that current modified tables of 
equipment (MTOE) may not fully encompass the equipment required 
for future missions and may not entirely account for equipment 
used in recent and current contingencies. In order to help the 
committee more completely assess future needs, the committee 
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to examine 
the Army and Marine Corps' modified tables of equipment, and to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
February 28, 2012.
    At a minimum, the review should examine:
          (1) What equipment used in operations in Operation 
        Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and 
        Operation New Dawn should be added to MTOEs;
          (2) The process by which equipment is nominated for 
        inclusion in MTOEs;
          (3) Items that should be removed from MTOEs; and
          (4) The military services' respective strategies for 
        future sustainment of MTOEs outside of Overseas 
        Contingency Operations funds.

                     Naval Air Station North Island

    The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's plan 
to increase the number of MH-60 Seahawk helicopters stationed 
at Naval Air Station North Island, California and understands 
the important mission of these aircraft. The committee urges 
the Navy to continue working with the City of Imperial Beach 
and the City of Coronado to identify mitigation measures, 
develop a noise reduction strategy, and communicate in advance 
with the local communities, whenever practical, the potential 
impact of increased flight activities at Naval Air Station 
North Island and Naval Outlying Field Imperial Beach.

  Review of Department of Defense's Mix of Live and Simulated Training

    The Department of Defense prepares U.S. forces to conduct 
military operations by providing personnel with live training 
and through the use of technology, such as simulators and other 
virtual training devices. These virtual training devices allow 
military personnel to replicate many of the interactions and 
procedures they may encounter on the battlefield with fewer 
constraints, such as the high costs of live training and timely 
access to training ranges. In an effort to achieve greater 
efficiency, maximize training opportunities, and potentially 
reduce training costs, each military service is in various 
stages of developing concepts and training programs that 
integrate live and simulated training. In announcing the 
results of the Department's recent efficiency initiative, the 
Secretary of Defense identified various efficiencies and 
potential savings related to modifying training programs or 
concepts in support of flying hour requirements, including the 
use of simulators.
    In order to better understand the potential benefits of the 
military services' efforts, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to review the status 
of military services' programs, including factors that were 
considered in determining the appropriate mix of live and 
simulated training, actual or planned adjustments to existing 
training approaches, and the impact on their ability to achieve 
training objectives, related funding plans as well as the basis 
for any projected cost savings, and metrics they intend to use 
to evaluate the impact of any increased use of simulators and 
other virtual training devices on their ability to train the 
force. The review also should include training for the Reserve 
Components and whether the Reserve Components have the 
necessary access to simulated training to supplement any 
reductions in live training. In reporting on each of the 
military services, the Comptroller General may take a phased 
approach to undertaking its review and reporting results to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

                       Security Force Assistance

    The committee understands that while the U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM) has traditionally been the 
proponent for security force assistance, the 2010 Quadrennial 
Defense Review identified the need to strengthen and 
institutionalize general-purpose force capabilities for 
security force assistance. Moreover, the committee understands 
that the Secretary of Defense has proposed USSOCOM divestiture 
of the security force assistance mission as part of the 
Department's efficiency initiative.
    The committee is concerned about USSOCOM's divestiture of 
the security force assistance mission and the growing use of 
general-purpose forces to carry out the security force 
assistance mission in support of Operation New Dawn and 
Operation Enduring Freedom without any formal 
institutionalization of the mission within the conventional 
force.
    In order to better understand the current and future 
security force assistance mission, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the 
Department's plans to institutionalize security force 
assistance in the general-purpose force and to report the 
results of this review to the congressional defense committees 
by March 31, 2012. At a minimum, this review should evaluate:
          (1) The extent to which the Department has defined 
        and differentiated intended roles, missions, and 
        required capabilities for security force assistance for 
        both general purpose forces and special operations 
        forces;
          (2) The extent to which the Department has 
        incorporated lessons learned from current operations; 
        and
          (3) The extent to which the Army has developed its 
        concept for regionally aligned brigades and has 
        identified costs associated with implementing the 
        concept.

                 U.S. Army Full Spectrum Training Mile

    The committee is aware that the Army has transitioned its 
methodology for identifying training requirements and resource 
allocations and is using the term ``Full Spectrum Training 
Mile'' (FSTM) as a metric. The committee is concerned that this 
metric may not be the best tool for gauging operations tempo 
and content of training.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to review the Army's transition to FSTM as a 
readiness metric and to submit a report on the findings to the 
congressional defense committees by February 28, 2012. At a 
minimum, the review should examine:
          (1) The methodology behind the new metric, to include 
        vehicles covered;
          (2) Cost estimates and assumptions; and
          (3) The model suitability for budgeting, forecasting, 
        and training.

                             Other Matters


                    Air Force Environmental Cleanup

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a 
robust environmental cleanup program with significant resources 
dedicated to it. The committee is concerned that the Department 
of the Air Force has been too focused on process and studies in 
its environmental restoration program and is behind the other 
services in completing its cleanup activities. The committee 
encourages the Air Force to expedite its process and make 
significant progress in its cleanup activities.

 Briefing on the Use of the Overseas Contingency Operations Budget for 
                        Military Equipment Reset

    The committee is concerned that current Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance regarding the use of 
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) reset funds to mitigate 
home station equipment shortfalls resulting from overseas 
contingency operations may be too restrictive. Further, the 
committee recognizes that current OMB interpretation may 
unnecessarily restrict cost-equivalent equipment modifications 
through the OCO budget. While the committee understands that 
base budgeting is a viable solution to these shortfalls over 
the long term, current policy fails to provide the more 
immediate readiness improvements that OCO funding can provide. 
Therefore, no later than August 31, 2011, the committee directs 
the Secretaries of the military departments to provide the 
congressional defense committees a briefing on current reset 
policy. At a minimum, this briefing should address:
          (1) Operational equipment shortfalls attributable to 
        current policy;
          (2) Degradation in equipment readiness attributable 
        to current policy; and
          (3) Production inefficiencies caused by current 
        policy.

       Department of Defense Personnel Security Clearance Program

    In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
designated the Department of Defense Personnel Security 
Clearance Program as a high-risk area due to long-standing 
delays in the clearance process as well as concerns over 
clearance documentation. While the Department's security 
clearance program remained on GAO's high-risk list since 2005, 
several GAO reports highlighted the significant progress that 
the Department has made in timeliness, development of quality 
assessment tools and adjudicative guidance. Therefore, in 2011 
the Department's security clearance program was removed from 
the GAO's high-risk list.
    The committee notes that much of that progress is due to 
the Department's role in the Joint Security and Suitability 
Reform Team which was formed to transform and modernize the 
security clearance process across the Federal Government. The 
work of this team was cited in the committee report (H. Rept. 
111-491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011. While the Department's security clearance 
program is no longer on GAO's high-risk list, the committee 
will continue to monitor the Department's efforts to ensure 
that the improvements are sustained.

        Department of Defense Unexploded Ordnance Cleanup Report

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's 
environmental cleanup activities. The committee recognizes that 
the Military Munitions Response Program includes more than 256 
sites requiring investigations and cleanup activities. The 
committee is concerned that remedy in place and remedy complete 
timelines in some locations, such as Hawaii, are long. The 
committee is aware that the Department of Defense is exploring 
new technologies for unexploded ordnance identification and 
cleanup that may result in significant savings and expedite 
cleanup efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January 
31, 2012. At a minimum, the report should include:
          (1) What new technologies the Department of Defense 
        is developing for unexploded ordnance identification 
        and cleanup;
          (2) How those technologies may accelerate cleanup 
        timelines for all installations, and specifically those 
        in Hawaii;
          (3) Estimated timeline for adopting new technologies; 
        and
          (4) Estimated savings anticipated as a result of 
        these new technologies.

                      Disposal of Surplus Property

    The committee is aware that the U.S. military has long-
standing processes for disposing of property that has been 
declared excess to the needs of the Federal Government. With 
the redeployment of U.S. military forces from the Republic of 
Iraq, excess property that is not needed by the Government of 
the Republic of Iraq is then made available to State and local 
governments.
    The committee commends the Department of the Army and the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense for developing procedures to 
assist State and local governments and their appointed 
representatives to have visibility on the excess property being 
made available in order to determine if the property is 
something they may be able to use and in sound enough condition 
to warrant the costs associated with transporting the property 
from the theater of operation to its final destination. The 
committee is aware that some of the excess items from Iraq and 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are being sent to the 
Sierra Army Depot, California, where representatives of the 
State and local governments have access to screen the 
equipment. The committee encourages the Army to continue to 
improve these processes and to take such steps as necessary and 
reasonable to allow the State and local governments' 
representatives to screen property in a forward location such 
as the State of Kuwait, thereby improving visibility and access 
to available surplus property and reducing overseas 
transportation charges for undesirable equipment,
    Additionally, while the Army has been proactive in this 
regard, the committee is unaware of similar procedures being 
established by the other military departments. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Logistics and Materiel Readiness to review the disposal 
processes of the other services and, if necessary, work with 
the military services to establish procedures to provide access 
to surplus property of those military services to State and 
local governments. Such review shall be completed by February 
1, 2012.

      Expedited Security Clearance Processing for Wounded Warriors

    The committee notes that there is a strong demand by 
Federal Government agencies for individuals with high level 
security clearances which few military personnel possess. 
Expediting security clearance processing would facilitate the 
hiring of individuals who have had their military careers cut 
short due to a disability. Therefore, the committee included 
section 351 in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) that amended 
section 1564, title 10, United States Code, which provides for 
the use of expedited procedures for completing background 
investigations for the granting of security clearances in 
certain circumstances. Section 351 authorizes the Secretary of 
Defense to use this authority to assist the transition to a 
civilian career for military personnel who have been retired or 
separated for a physical disability pursuant to chapter 61 of 
title 10, United States Code; this authorization also includes 
the spouse of such military personnel. The Department is 
authorized to expend funds to conduct an expedited security 
clearance once the individual has applied for a Federal 
Government position for which he or she is qualified and for 
which a security clearance is required.
    The committee is concerned that the Federal Government's 
internal human resources processes may not allow for timely 
consideration of the qualifications of an individual who has 
submitted an application but is awaiting processing of a 
security clearance in order to be considered for a Federal 
Government position. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a policy for Department of 
Defense hiring actions that ensures employment applications for 
these individuals are not disqualified in the initial human 
resources screening process on the basis of a lack of a 
clearance. Such policy should ensure that appropriate human 
resources offices proactively contact the eligible candidates 
to ensure that the expedited security clearance processing 
moves forward, even if there is no guarantee of ultimate 
employment. In addition, the policy should ensure that if the 
eligible candidate is not offered employment under that 
particular hiring action, that the expedited clearance review 
is completed, which would facilitate the ability of the 
individual to apply for future Federal Government positions. 
The Secretary of Defense shall provide a copy of the policy to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services not later than December 15, 2011.

  Federal Facility Agreement for Environmental Cleanup at Tyndall Air 
                               Force Base

    The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not 
signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) with the 
Environmental Protection Agency to guide its environmental 
cleanup activities at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. FFAs 
provide the procedural framework for cleanup activities under 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (Public Law 96-510). The Air Force and the 
Environmental Protection Agency have been negotiating this FFA 
for more than 2 years, and the committee is concerned that lack 
of consensus between the two agencies has had a detrimental 
effect on mitigating the potential exposure for individuals to 
environmental hazards. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to engage a third party arbiter, such as the Council 
for Environmental Quality, by July 31, 2011 to expedite 
conclusion of this agreement in order that environmental 
cleanup of the site can be achieved.

                     Joint Space Operations Center

    The Joint Space Operations Center is responsible for the 
operational employment of worldwide joint space forces and 
maintains space data for all man-made objects orbiting the 
Earth. The committee wants to ensure the continuity of this 
important capability. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Commander, Air Force Space Command to develop a continuity of 
operations (COOP) plan for the Joint Space Operations Center 
(JSpOC) and to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 2, 2012 on the details of the COOP plan and 
any resources required to implement the plan.

          Key Enabler Explosive Ordnance Disposal Requirements

    The committee recognizes that the services have taken 
extraordinary efforts to revitalize the capability and increase 
the capacity of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) force. 
The committee recognizes that the EOD force is a key enabler 
for combatant commanders and will continue to be vital for the 
foreseeable future. However, the committee remains concerned 
that the services have not adequately rebalanced EOD force 
structure and maintained full-spectrum capabilities to ensure 
success in a wide range of contingencies, as directed by the 
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to establish a new consolidated budget justification display 
that fully identifies the services' baseline EOD budgets and 
encompasses all programs and activities of the EOD force for 
each of the following functions:
          (1) Procurement;
          (2) Operation and Maintenance; and
          (3) Research, development, testing and evaluation.
    In order to help the committee more fully assess future 
requirements, the committee further directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on Explosive Ordnance Disposal force 
structure planning to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2012.
    The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the Department's force structure plan 
and report the findings to the congressional defense committees 
within 120 days of completion of the secretary's report.

                   Satellite Operations Efficiencies

    The Air Force Satellite Control Network consists of 
satellite control centers, tracking stations, and test 
facilities located around the world. For many Air Force 
satellite systems, mission control centers (MCC) are located at 
the Consolidated Space Operations Center at Schriever Air Force 
Base Colorado. For other satellite systems, including other 
Department of Defense (DOD) satellites, MCCs have been fielded 
in various geographic locations. These centers are staffed 
around the clock and are responsible for the operations and 
command and control of their assigned satellite systems.
    Today, efforts are underway to modernize these various 
satellite operations centers from their initial point-to-point 
architectures using proprietary data-transfer protocols to 
interoperable network architectures using standard protocols. 
While the committee commends such efforts, it remains concerned 
that these operations centers require more resources than their 
commercial system counterparts. The committee recognizes the 
importance of the Department's satellite operations 
capabilities and understands that some DOD-unique requirements 
may preclude the adoption of certain commercial practices. 
However, the committee believes there is opportunity to improve 
satellite operations and create greater efficiencies by 
leveraging commercial best practices.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide an assessment to the congressional defense 
committees by February 6, 2012, to include: an assessment of 
the Department's efforts to modernize its satellite operations 
capabilities, a comparison of the Department's satellite 
operations concepts with those in other Government entities and 
commercial industry, and an identification of practices that 
the Department could adopt to improve its satellite operations, 
consistent with Department of Defense mission requirements.

                  Wounded Warrior Service Dog Programs

    The committee recognizes that over 32,000 soldiers have 
been severely wounded in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom and that the majority of those 
wounded return with severe injuries such as amputations, 
traumatic brain injuries, or the loss of vision.
    For many of these most severely wounded warriors, service 
dogs provide crucial therapy, assistance, and rehabilitation. 
Currently, there is a waiting list of more than 200 disabled 
veterans and active military personnel seeking assistance dogs 
provided to military agencies and hospitals by non-governmental 
organizations. Given the growing need for service dogs and 
their impact on the lives of wounded service members, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should expand 
its participation in non-governmental organization programs 
that facilitate the connection between service dogs and wounded 
warriors.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize appropriations for operation 
and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 
4301 of division D of this Act.

            Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions


 Section 311--Designation of Senior Official of Joint Chiefs of Staff 
for Operational Energy Plans and Programs and Operational Energy Budget 
                             Certification

    This section would modify section 138(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to require the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
identify a senior operational energy official. This section 
would also change the date of the required operational energy 
budget certification.

 Section 312--Military Installation Implementation of Land Management 
                    Plans and Sustainability Studies

    This section would modify section 2694 of title 10, United 
States Code, by expanding on the Department of Defense's 
conservation activities.

Section 313--Improved Sikes Act Coverage of State-Owned Facilities Used 
                        for the National Defense

    This section would amend The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) to 
include State-owned National Guard facilities, defines state as 
any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Virgin 
Islands, and would add a provision for funding integrated 
national resource management plans.

  Section 314--Discharge of Wastes at Sea Generated by Vessels of the 
                              Armed Forces

    This section would amend section 1902(b)(2) of title 33, 
United States Code, to codify discharge practices in the sea 
for ships owned or operated by a branch of the Armed Forces. 
The committee recognizes the success the Navy has had with 
minimizing its trash and discharge at sea, both in open oceans 
and in special areas in accordance with existing regulatory 
frameworks. This section would codify the current Navy 
discharge practices in the open ocean and would create a 
reporting requirement for any exceptions necessary for the 
purpose of securing the safety of the ship, the health of the 
ship's personnel or saving life at sea.

 Section 315--Designation of Department of Defense Executive Agent for 
                      Alternative Fuel Development

    This section would require the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs (OEPP) to 
recommend and the Secretary of Defense to designate a service 
secretary as the executive agent for alternative fuel 
development. The Assistant Secretary of Defense OEPP would 
direct the policy, and the executive agent would collaborate 
with the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research and 
Engineering as well as the Department of Energy.
    The committee is encouraged that the service secretaries 
have tested and certified their fleets to accept alternative 
fuels or blends. The committee notes that the Department of 
Defense has multiple investments and activities for the 
development of alternative fuels. This section would require 
the Department of Defense to streamline those investments and 
eliminate redundancies.

 Section 316--Favorable Consideration of Energy-Efficient Technologies 
      in Contracts for Logistics Support of Contingency Operations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to give 
favorable consideration to defense logistics support contract 
proposals in support of contingency operations that include 
energy efficient or energy reduction technologies or processes. 
The committee continues to be concerned about the high demand 
for fossil fuel in contingency operations and the security 
challenges it creates for logistics convoys.

                 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment


     Section 321--Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair

    This section would amend section 2460 of title 10, United 
States Code, to revise the definition of depot-level 
maintenance and repair. The study on the future capability of 
the Department of Defense (DOD) maintenance depots directed by 
section 322 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) found that the 
existing statutory definition was ambiguous and subject to 
interpretation by the individual military services. The 
committee is concerned that these ambiguities are directly 
impacting the development of core logistics capabilities and 
allocation of sustaining workloads. To resolve those 
ambiguities, this section would adopt the definition in DOD 
instruction 4151.2, which is the generally recognized and 
accepted definition currently used by the Department.

                Section 322--Core Logistics Capabilities

    This section would eliminate the exclusion for special 
access programs from the core logistics capability requirements 
determination and would align the exemption for the nuclear 
refueling of aircraft carriers with the exemption in section 
2460 of title 10, United States Code. The study on the future 
capability of the Department of Defense maintenance depots 
directed by section 322 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) 
found that the existing core determination process should be 
revised to ensure that it is visible and readily understood.
    This section also would amend section 2464 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require an annual report on the core 
logistics capability requirements; the depot maintenance 
workload requirements to cost-effectively support core 
logistics capabilities; and the depot maintenance workload 
beyond the core requirement needed to ensure that no more than 
50 percent of the non-exempt depot maintenance funding is 
expended for performance by non-Federal Government personnel in 
accordance with section 2466 of title 10, United States Code. 
The report also would include: the allocation of workload for 
the Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence as 
designated in accordance with section 2474 of title 10, United 
States Code; and the depot maintenance capital investments 
requirement to ensure that core logistics capabilities are 
established not later than four years after a non-exempted 
weapon system achieves initial operational capability as 
required by section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code. 
The committee believes that an annual report on the core 
determination process and the workload outcomes resulting from 
that process will enhance oversight, align capital investment 
to support current and emerging core capabilities, and better 
align sustainment planning with acquisition and development.

 Section 323--Designation of Military Industrial Facilities as Centers 
                 of Industrial and Technical Excellence

    This section would amend section 2474, title 10, United 
States Code, to include military industrial facilities in the 
designation of Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence 
(CITE). Designation as a CITE would facilitate the ability of 
each of the military industrial facilities to enter into 
public-private partnerships while also improving their core 
competencies. The committee believes that this change could 
help further strengthen the Department of Defense's organic 
manufacturing and repair industrial base.

   Section 324--Redesignation of Core Competencies as Core Logistics 
    Capabilities for Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence

    This section would amend section 2474 of title 10, United 
States Code, to change the designation of core competencies as 
core logistics capability in order to better align the depot 
maintenance workload allocation for each Center of Industrial 
and Technical Excellence, as designated by section 2474 of 
title 10, United States Code, with the recognized core 
logistics capabilities of the designee.
    The study on the future capability of the Department of 
Defense maintenance depots directed by section 322 of the 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) found that the Department's 
organic depot maintenance system may face substantial workload 
reductions in the near term as a result of reduced operations, 
anticipated changes to inventory and expected funding 
pressures. The committee is concerned that depot maintenance 
workload allocations for the Centers of Industrial and 
Technical Excellence are not aligned with the core logistics 
determination process required by section 2464 of title 10, 
United States Code, resulting in inefficiencies, a lack of 
organizational integration, and an inability for public and 
private-sector depot maintenance providers to respond to 
workload uncertainties.

   Section 325--Permanent and Expanded Authority for Army Industrial 
Facilities to Enter into Certain Cooperative Arrangements with Non-Army 
                                Entities

    This section would amend section 4544 of title 10, United 
States Code, to repeal the cap on the number of cooperative 
arrangements that may be entered into and would make the 
authority permanent.
    In addition, this section would amend the reporting 
requirement mandated in section 328 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to 
assess the effective use of the authorities provided under 
section 4544, title 10, United States Code, and to make 
recommendations for improvement to each category of Army 
industrial facility to compete for contracts.

  Section 326--Amendment to Requirement Relating To Consideration of 
   Competition Throughout Operation and Sustainment of Major Weapon 
                                Systems

    This section would amend section 202(d) of the Weapon 
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) to 
include a subsystem or component of a major weapons system in 
the requirement for consideration of competition throughout 
operation and sustainment of major weapon systems.

   Section 327--Implementation of Corrective Actions Resulting from 
             Corrosion Study of the F-22 and F-35 Aircraft

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take corrective 
actions resulting from the corrosion study of the F-22 Raptor 
and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and implement the 
recommendations of the Government Accountability Office 
regarding the study.
    The committee notes that despite a projected 38-to-1 return 
on investment from corrosion mitigation and control projects 
planned for implementation in fiscal year 2012 through the 
Office of the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, the 
Department of Defense consistently underfunds corrosion 
efforts. With an estimated annual cost of corrosion of $22.0 
billion, the committee urges the Department to give more 
serious consideration to the $37 avoided for every $1 invested 
for corrosion mitigation and control actions such as those 
recommended for the F-22 and F-35 aircraft.

                         Subtitle D--Readiness


Section 331--Modification of Department of Defense Authority To Accept 
                    Voluntary Contributions of Funds

    This section would modify section 358(g) of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) to permit the Secretary of Defense to accept 
voluntary contributions in amounts that shall remain available 
until expended for the purpose of offsetting the cost of 
mitigation measures. This section also would permit the 
Secretary of Defense to accept voluntary contributions to 
conduct studies of potential mitigation measures.

Section 332--Review of Proposed Structures Affecting Navigable Airspace

    This section would modify section 44718 of title 49, United 
States Code, to permit the Federal Aviation Administration to 
develop procedures for the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Homeland Security to review and comment on 
aeronautical studies.

   Section 333--Sense of Congress Regarding Integration of Ballistic 
  Missile Defense Training Across and Between Combatant Commands and 
                           Military Services

    This section would express the sense of Congress on 
improving the integration of ballistic missile defense training 
across and between combatant commands and military services, 
identifying and addressing training gaps in integrated missile 
defense training, and identifying the capabilities and funding 
needed to effectively and adequately integrate training.

                          Subtitle E--Reports


Section 341--Annual Certification and Modifications of Annual Report on 
                  Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment

    This section would amend sections 2229 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to annually 
certify that U.S. military prepositioned stocks meet current 
operations plans. This section also requires the Secretary of 
Defense to provide additional information on the health, 
status, and composition of prepositioned stocks in the 
Secretary's annual report to the congressional defense 
committees.
    The committee remains concerned that the Department's 
approach to establishing requirements, managing, and resourcing 
prepositioned stocks may be unnecessarily increasing strategic 
risk and contingency response times. The committee is also 
concerned that the Department has not sufficiently coordinated 
prepositioned stocks requirements, management, and planning 
with its strategic airlift and sealift planning and 
requirements.

   Section 342--Modification of Report on Maintenance and Repair of 
                      Vessels in Foreign Shipyards

    This section would modify section 7310(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to include vessels that are operated 
pursuant to a contract entered into by the Military Sealift 
Command, the Maritime Administration, or the U.S. 
Transportation Command.

  Section 343--Additional Requirements for Annual Report on Military 
                              Working Dogs

    This section would amend section 358 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417) to require the Secretary of Defense to provide 
additional information on the use of military working dogs on a 
contracted basis, the status of the Department's breeding 
programs, and the future military working dog force structure.
    The committee remains concerned that the Department may 
rely too heavily on contracted military working dogs and may 
not be fully utilizing the Department's domestic breeding 
programs leading to increased costs to the taxpayer.

Section 344--Assessment and Reporting Requirements Regarding the Status 
    of Compliance with Joint Military Training and Force Allocations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a biennial assessment of the military departments 
compliance with the joint training, doctrine, and resource 
allocation recommendations that are promulgated by the Joint 
Staff. The assessment also would include the effectiveness of 
the Joint Staff in carrying out the missions of planning and 
experimentation formerly accomplished by U.S. Joint Forces 
Command. The results of the first assessment would be provided 
to the congressional defense committees by March 31 of 2012, 
and every even-numbered year thereafter.

 Section 345--Study of United States Pacific Command Training Readiness

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
conjunction with U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), to complete a 
study by February 28, 2013, on current and future training 
requirements for the Armed Forces assigned to USPACOM's area of 
responsibility.

          Subtitle F--Limitations and Extensions of Authority


Section 351--Adoption of Military Working Dog by Family of Deceased or 
 Seriously Wounded Member of the Armed Forces Who Was the Dog's Handler

    This section would amend section 2583(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to authorize the adoption of a military 
working dog by the family of a deceased or seriously wounded 
member of the Armed Forces who was the handler of the dog.

      Section 352--Prohibition on Expansion of the Air Force Food 
                       Transformation Initiative

    This section would prohibit the Air Force from expanding 
its Food Transformation Initiative beyond the initial six bases 
in the pilot program until 270 days after the Secretary of the 
Air Force provides a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. This report 
would include a description on the impact of the initiative on 
non-appropriated funded employees; a detailed information 
technology plan, including funding for implementation; and a 
description of performance metrics for measuring the 
initiative. In addition, the report would include an estimate 
of cost savings; an explanation of the tracking of appropriated 
and non-appropriated funds; an explanation of any barriers 
encountered and recommended remedies; and a plan for addressing 
recommendations expected to be made by the Government 
Accountability Office following its review of the initiative.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee expressed its initial concern regarding the Air 
Force's Food Transformation Initiative. As a result, the 
committee required a review of the initiative by the 
Comptroller General of the United States, which is due in July 
2011. While the Air Force was prohibited from moving forward 
with expansion of the initiative until 90 days after that 
review, the committee is concerned that the Air Force intends 
to continue expanding this initiative without fully assessing 
the full impact at the six initial bases, and addressing any 
problems encountered at these bases.

Section 353--Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure of Funds for the 
              Migration of Army Enterprise Email Services

    This section would prohibit the Army from obligating more 
than 2 percent of the funds available for fiscal year 2012 in 
procurement and operations and maintenance accounts for the 
migration of enterprise email services until the Secretary of 
the Army provides a business case analysis comparing the 
relative merits and cost-benefit analysis of transitioning to 
Defense Information Systems Agency enterprise email services.

 Section 354--One-Year Extension of Pilot Program for Availability of 
     Working-Capital Funds to Army for Certain Product Improvements

    This section would extend the Department of the Army 
Product Improvement Pilot Program authorized by the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), to October 1, 2014.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


Section 361--Consideration of Foreclosure Circumstances in Adjudication 
                         of Security Clearances

    This section would allow special consideration during 
security clearance adjudications to be given to members of the 
Armed Forces who may have a housing foreclosure on his or her 
credit report. The committee notes that the recent housing 
crisis and resulting foreclosures are a potential problem for 
members of the Armed Forces since a foreclosure could 
jeopardize their ability to apply for or renew a security 
clearance.

 Section 362--Authority To Provide Information for Maritime Safety of 
                    Forces and Hydrographic Support

    This section would amend part IV of subtitle C of title 10, 
United States Code, by inserting after chapter 667 a new 
chapter authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to maximize the 
safety and effectiveness of Navy, Joint, the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, and coalition forces by collecting marine 
weather and ocean data, modeling of that data, and forecasting 
potentially hazardous meteorological and oceanographic 
conditions.

    Section 363--Deposit of Reimbursed Funds under Reciprocal Fire 
                         Protection Agreements

    This section would amend section 1856d(b) of title 42, 
United States Code, which allows the Department of Defense to 
allocate reimbursements for fire protection services to the 
appropriation fund or account from which the expenses were paid 
subject to the same provisions and restrictions as the original 
funding. This section would add flexibility to the 
reimbursement process beginning in fiscal year 2012 by 
permitting the Department to allocate reimbursements to the 
fund or account currently available for fire protection 
activities should the period of availability for obligation 
under which services were originally provided have expired.

     Section 364--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To Be 
Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Printing and Reproduction

    This section would reduce by 10 percent the printing and 
reproduction budgets for each of the military departments and 
the defense agencies.
    The committee notes that the budget request contained 
$357.0 million for printing and reproduction services, 
Department-wide. While the committee recognizes that paper 
copies often are necessary to facilitate mission 
accomplishment, the committee believes that the Department 
should reduce spending on high-quality, glossy color prints 
(such as the ones accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget 
rollout, and other reports and briefings to Congress). 
Utilizing double-sided, plain, black-and-white copies still 
accomplishes the goal, while achieving considerable savings. In 
addition, the committee urges the Department to consider 
technologies, such as electronic documentation and 
transmission, to process information without the use of paper 
printing and reproduction. This section would generate $35.7 
million in savings in fiscal year 2012.

     Section 365--Reduction in Amounts Otherwise Authorized To Be 
  Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Studies, Analysis and 
                              Evaluations

    This section would reduce by 10 percent the budget request 
for studies, analyses, and evaluations performed by each 
military department and the defense agencies. The committee 
notes that the Secretary of Defense has emphasized the need to 
fund the core mission of the Department of Defense, realigning 
funds from non-essential cost areas to areas of direct mission 
support. The Secretary of Defense has implemented an initiative 
to eliminate unnecessary Department of Defense boards and study 
groups, and this section would support the Secretary's efforts 
to reduce unnecessary costs. This section would generate a 
savings of $24.0 million in fiscal year 2012.

Section 366--Clarification of the Airlift Service Definitions Relative 
                     to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet

    This section would amend section 41106 of title 49, United 
States Code, to clarify that the application of current law is 
limited to contracts for airlift services using aircraft of a 
type the Department of Defense has determined are eligible for 
participation in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program.

    Section 367--Ratemaking Procedures for Civil Reserve Air Fleet 
                               Contracts

    This section would amend section 9511a of title 10, United 
States Code, to codify the authority of the Department of 
Defense to offer scheduled and expansion contract airlift 
business to Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carriers according 
to the amount of airlift capability they commit for CRAF 
activation. Commercial air carriers in the CRAF program commit 
airlift capability to be activated for the Department's use 
during wartime. In exchange for such a commitment, the 
Department contracts with the participating carriers for its 
peacetime or routine airlift requirements. The committee is 
aware that competitive contracts for this activity are 
generally not feasible because oftentimes none of the air 
carriers have commercial operations in the needed locations and 
therefore have no basis for providing a reasonable offer. The 
committee notes that this type of entitlement-based contract is 
done in conjunction with statutorily mandated ratemaking 
procedures that have served as an effective means of 
determining fair and reasonable rates while furthering the 
objectives of the CRAF program.

      Section 368--Sense of Congress on Proposed Federal Aviation 
Administration Changes to Flight Crew Member Duty and Rest Requirements

    This section would express a sense of Congress that the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
should make every effort to ensure that any changes to 
guidelines, regulations, and rules of the FAA, including 
changes to flight crew member duty and rest requirements, fully 
consider the impact of such changes on the Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet carriers, U.S. Transportation Command and the Department 
of Defense.

     Section 369--Policy on Active Shooter Training for Certain Law 
                         Enforcement Personnel

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and promulgate guidelines to ensure civilian and 
military law enforcement responsible for force protection at 
U.S. military installations receive Active Shooter Training. 
The committee recognizes this training was a recommendation of 
the Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort 
Hood entitled ``Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood.''

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee supports the budget request for the 
authorized end strengths for the Armed Forces in fiscal year 
2012. The budget request reduces the end strength of the Active 
Duty Army by 7,400 personnel to 562,000, which is a planned 
reduction of the temporary end strength increase authorized in 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). Notwithstanding support for the 
Army's reduction, the committee remains concerned with the 
continued impact of the high number of non-deployable soldiers 
on Army readiness, individual dwell time, and the Army's 
ability to ensure deploying units are fully manned. Based on 
data provided to the committee by the Army during briefings, 17 
percent, which is approximately 20,000 personnel, of soldiers 
in the Army's deploying combat units are not deployable, and 
this figure is growing at an unsustainable rate. In addition, 
there are approximately 9,000 soldiers processing through the 
Permanent Disability Evaluation System after being found 
medically unfit for service. The Army could potentially face a 
deployable inventory deficit of 30,000 soldiers for its mission 
requirements by fiscal year 2017 if these challenges are not 
addressed. While the Army could take measures to partially 
reduce the number of non-deployable personnel in its combat 
units, the committee believes that more dramatic measures will 
be required to reform the Permanent Disability Evaluation 
System, which still requires disabled soldiers to remain on 
Active Duty for 1 year or more as they are processed through 
the system.
    The committee is also concerned with the Navy's request of 
a reduction in the active authorized end strength by 3,000 
sailors. The Navy has been challenged over the past several 
years as sailors deployed as individual augmentees to overseas 
contingency operations to execute non-traditional Navy 
missions, which has drained needed manpower from the fleet. The 
Navy has undertaken an efficiency task to increase readiness in 
the fleet by eliminating approximately 7,200 shore billets and 
assigning those personnel to sea billets. The committee will 
closely monitor this process as well as the Navy's reduction of 
manpower and the impact on operations and requirements.
    The Secretary of Defense, as part of an additional $78-
billion efficiencies reduction in the Department budget top 
line, has proposed to significantly reduce the size of the 
active Army by 27,000 soldiers and the active Marine Corps by 
15,300 Marines beginning in fiscal year 2015 through fiscal 
year 2016. The committee is concerned the impact this force 
reduction will have on individual dwell time on both services, 
especially for the Army since this reduction of 27,000 soldiers 
is in addition to a planned reduction of 22,000 temporary end 
strength by fiscal year 2013. The committee has heard 
repeatedly in hearings and briefings over the past several 
years that achieving an individual dwell time ratio of 1 to 3 
is critical to maintaining the health of the Active Component 
Army and Marine Corps and their families. In his statement for 
the record submitted to the committee during the fiscal year 
2012 Department of Defense posture hearing, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that, ``For our Army combat units, 
we do not expect to begin to reach our interim goal of 1:2 
deploy-to-dwell ratios until 2012.'' This appears to be the 
best ratio that can be obtained for the foreseeable future; and 
the new standard. The projected force reductions are based on 
an assumption that the combat commitment in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan would be significantly reduced by the 
end of 2014. It remains unclear to the committee what the level 
of forces in Afghanistan would need to be reduced in order to 
allow the force reduction to begin without an adverse impact on 
troops and their families. More importantly, the manpower 
reductions appear to have no relationship to the requirements 
of overall national military strategy or to future war fighting 
requirements.
    The committee is committed to working with the Department 
to ensure that the proper analysis of end strength requirements 
is completed prior to the proposed reductions beginning. It is 
imperative the military maintain sufficient manpower to support 
current and future requirements that have been generated by a 
Nation at war for almost 10 years.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces


              Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September 
30, 2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          FY 2012                Change from
                                                      FY 2011  -------------------------------------------------
                      Service                       Authorized                 Committee     FY 2012    FY 2011
                                                                  Request   Recommendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..............................................     569,400     562,000       562,000           0      -7,400
Navy..............................................     328,700     325,700       325,739          39      -2,961
USMC..............................................     202,100     202,100       202,100           0           0
Air Force.........................................     332,200     332,800       332,800           0         600
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD...........................................   1,432,400   1,422,600     1,422,639          39      -9,761
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum 
                                 Levels

    This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end 
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of 
September 30, 2012. The committee recommends 562,000 as the 
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 325,739 as the 
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 202,100 as the 
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 
332,800 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air 
Force.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces


            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for 
Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of 
September 30, 2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          FY 2012                Change from
                                                      FY 2011  -------------------------------------------------
                      Service                       Authorized                 Committee     FY 2012    FY 2011
                                                                  Request   Recommendation   Request  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...............................     358,200     358,200       358,200           0           0
Army Reserve......................................     205,000     205,000       205,000           0           0
Navy Reserve......................................      65,500      66,200        66,200           0         700
Marine Corps Reserve..............................      39,600      39,600        39,600           0           0
Air National Guard................................     106,700     106,700       106,700           0           0
Air Force Reserve.................................      71,200      71,400        71,400           0         200
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.....................................     846,200     847,100       847,100           0         900
Coast Guard Reserve...............................      10,000      10,000        10,000           0           0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of 
                              the Reserves

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of 
September 30, 2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FY 2012                 Change from
                                                    FY 2011  ---------------------------------------------------
                     Service                      Authorized                 Committee      FY 2012     FY 2011
                                                                Request   Recommendation    Request   Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................      32,060      32,060        32,060             0           0
Army Reserve....................................      16,261      16,261        16,261             0           0
Naval Reserve...................................      10,688      10,337        10,337             0        -351
Marine Corps Reserve............................       2,261       2,261         2,261             0           0
Air National Guard..............................      14,584      14,833        14,833             0         249
Air Force Reserve...............................       2,992       2,662         2,662             0        -330
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...................................      78,846      78,414        78,414             0        -432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 
2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FY 2012                 Change from
                                                    FY 2011  ---------------------------------------------------
                     Service                      Authorized                 Committee      FY 2012     FY 2011
                                                                Request   Recommendation    Request   Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve....................................       8,395       8,395         8,395             0           0
Army National Guard.............................      27,210      27,210        27,210             0           0
Air Force Reserve...............................      10,720      10,777        10,777             0          57
Air National Guard..............................      22,394      22,509        22,509             0         115
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...................................      68,719      68,891        68,891             0         172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 414--Fiscal Year 2012 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status 
                              Technicians

    This section would establish the maximum end strengths for 
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual 
status technicians as of September 30, 2012:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FY 2012                 Change from
                                                    FY 2011  ---------------------------------------------------
                     Service                      Authorized                 Committee      FY 2012     FY 2011
                                                                Request   Recommendation    Request   Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................       1,600       1,600         1,600             0           0
Air National Guard..............................         350         350           350             0           0
Army Reserve....................................         595         595           595             0           0
Air Force Reserve...............................          90          90            90             0           0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...................................       2,635       2,635         2,635             0           0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on 
                  Active Duty for Operational Support

    This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) 
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve 
Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time 
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2012 to provide 
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count 
against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section 
412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the 
limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States 
Code.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FY 2012                 Change from
                                                    FY 2011  ---------------------------------------------------
                     Service                      Authorized                 Committee      FY 2012     FY 2011
                                                                Request   Recommendation    Request   Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................      17,000      17,000        17,000             0           0
Army Reserve....................................      13,000      13,000        13,000             0           0
Naval Reserve...................................       6,200       6,200         6,200             0           0
Marine Corps Reserve............................       3,000       3,000         3,000             0           0
Air National Guard..............................      16,000      16,000        16,000             0           0
Air Force Reserve...............................      14,000      14,000        14,000             0           0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...................................      69,200      69,200        69,200             0           0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations


                    Section 421--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in 
section 4401 of division D of this Act.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee recognizes that after almost 10 years of war, 
the Department of Defense must remain flexible and continue to 
adapt its policies to maintain a viable All-Volunteer Force. 
The committee continues its efforts to provide needed 
flexibility to the Department in order to manage the total 
force. For example, the committee has included several 
provisions which enhance the management of the Reserve 
Component and increase the flexibility of the Marine Corps to 
manage its field grade officers. The committee also supports 
the need to provide flexibility for individuals during their 
military career and has extended authorities for service 
members to pause their active service in order to meet personal 
or professional needs and then return to active service.
    In addition, the committee has proposed reductions to the 
statutory authorizations in the numbers of general and flag 
officers on active duty, complementing the efforts of the 
Secretary of Defense to reduce such officers across the 
Department. Further, the committee has provided funds to 
support local educational agencies heavily impacted by military 
dependent enrollments.
    The committee also recognizes the selfless sacrifices that 
our military men and women and their families are making on 
behalf of the Nation and has included provisions that would 
improve the overall well being and readiness of the force. Just 
as important as those still serving, the committee believes its 
commitment to our service members does not end once they are 
out of the military. The committee has included several 
provisions to improve the oversight and function of Arlington 
National Cemetery, Virginia, and the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home. The Department of Defense and the military services have 
a history of partnering with local communities through 
community service projects, mentorship programs, and education 
programs to enhance the community and maintain a civic 
relationship with communities that support its installations. 
The committee commends the military services and the Department 
of Defense for their efforts and encourages the Department to 
continue to seek ways to expand these partnerships.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Community College of the Air Force

    The Community College of the Air Force provides enlisted 
members of the U.S. Air Force the opportunity to earn their 
associate degree in a variety of areas. The committee believes 
that program and funding efficiencies may be gained by allowing 
enlisted members from the other services to participate in this 
program. The committee requests the Secretary of Defense to 
review the feasibility and cost of allowing enlisted members 
from the other services, including the U.S. Coast Guard, to 
participate in the Community College of the Air Force's 
associate degree program, and to provide a briefing on the 
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

  Critical Language Training at Reserve Officer Training Programs and 
                        Senior Military Colleges

    The committee believes foreign language skills are critical 
to national security and has provided the Department of Defense 
the flexibility to establish programs to ensure a viable pool 
of foreign language speaking service members and national 
security personnel. Section 529 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish language 
training centers of excellence at universities, senior military 
colleges, and other institutions of higher learning to develop 
a foundation of expertise in critical and strategic languages 
and regional studies. The military is increasingly placed in 
roles where language skills are critical in day-to-day 
operations. Therefore, the committee recommends the Secretary 
of Defense to develop a program to establish language training 
centers, and also encourage the Secretary of Defense to include 
the Reserve Officer Training Corps and senior military college 
programs within the National Security Education Program.

  Expanding the Use of On-Line Education in the Department of Defense 
                          Educational Activity

    The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) 
educates eligible Department of Defense military and civilian 
dependents from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade in schools 
located overseas and in the U.S. and its territories and 
possessions. The committee recognizes that the technology to 
support successful online education exists in the civilian 
education sector and is concerned that DODEA may not be taking 
full advantage of online school programs that already exist and 
are successfully serving current military families. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
potential cost-savings and achievement benefits of introducing 
a K-12 online learning environment into the DODEA school 
system, and to report his findings to the committee by April 1, 
2012. The report shall identify existing online educational 
opportunities for DODEA students, alternative online school 
opportunities currently used by military families, and 
recommendations, as appropriate, for enhancing and funding 
DODEA's expansion of the use of online education.

         Review for Hispanic American Service Cross Recipients

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee noted that it believes that the statutory authority 
to conduct a review for Hispanic American service cross 
recipients from World War I exists in underlying law, section 
552 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002 (Public Law 107-107). In H. Rept. 111-491, the committee 
directed the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, 
and the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed 
Services notification of the reviews conducted within 180 days 
of the date of enactment of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). 
The committee anticipates receiving notification on this 
subject in June and looks forward to a full report on the 
actions that they have taken to ensure that the service of 
Hispanic American World War I veterans is properly recognized.

          Use of Electronic Media for Family Support Programs

    The committee continues to encourage the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to 
provide service members and their families a balance between 
work and family life and to promote quality of life programs. 
Given the high operations tempo experienced by many service 
members during the past nearly 10 years of war, the committee 
believes it is critical that widely dispersed military families 
far removed from military installations, particularly families 
of Reserve Component service members, have access to the tools 
necessary to effectively manage their lives during times of 
stress. Assistance in personal finance, stress management, 
grief counseling, and general morale and wellbeing management 
is a critical component of family support initiatives. The 
committee understands that these types of support services can 
be provided through a variety of cost-effective media options, 
to include audio books, compact disks, digital video disks, and 
other electronic media delivered through the Internet. Further, 
the committee believes that programs using such media options 
offer a flexible capability to target needed services to 
specific families on demand over a wide geographic area in a 
cost-effective manner. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report, by March 31, 2012, on the current use of 
electronic media for delivering family support programs within 
the Department of Defense, the potential for greater use of 
commercially procured electronic media to support family 
programs, a survey of vendors capable of providing such 
services who are already sanctioned by the General Services 
Administration, and the Secretary's view of the propriety and 
cost-effectiveness of increasing the use of electronic media to 
support family programs.

                     Wounded Warrior Implementation

    Section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) provided the authority enabling 
military technicians (dual status) to continue to be employed 
as technicians when the loss of their military membership in 
the Selected Reserve is the result of a combat-related 
disability. The National Guard Bureau issued implementing 
instruction in June 2009 to the state-level National Guard 
Headquarters. Unfortunately, the implementation guidance may 
not have been distributed to all pertinent levels of personnel 
and dual-status technicians may not have been informed of this 
program. Therefore, the committee directs the National Guard 
Bureau to reissue the implementing instructions to the state 
and territory headquarters with additional guidance to ensure 
the information is disseminated to the lowest level possible.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally


Section 501--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Marine Corps Officers 
   on Active Duty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel

    This section would increase the grade table allowance for 
Marine Corps officers serving on active duty in grades major, 
lieutenant colonel, and colonel. For example, with an officer 
strength of 17,500, the Marine Corps could promote 485 
additional officers to the grade of major, 286 additional 
officers to the grade of lieutenant colonel, and 37 additional 
officers to the grade of colonel.

          Section 502--General Officer and Flag Officer Reform

    This section would eliminate 14 authorizations for general 
and flag officers in joint duty assignments and add up to 7 
officers serving in intelligence positions to count against the 
joint duty assignment limit. This section would also eliminate 
11 Air Force general officer authorizations and would require 
that the superintendents of the service academies be counted 
against their respective service's general and flag officer 
limits. This section would require that the directed changes 
take place between January 1, 2012, and October 1, 2013. The 
committee applauds the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to 
reduce the number of general and flag officers on active duty, 
which numbered 967 as of July 2010, by 102 over the next 2 
years. However, the committee was disappointed that the 
Secretary made no substantial proposal in the budget request to 
reduce the statutory limits imposed not only on the number of 
general and flag officers on active duty, but also on the 
statutory limits on the number of general and flag officers 
serving in each grade. For example, at present, the military 
services are statutorily authorized to have as many as 658 
general and flag officers on active duty to meet in-service 
requirements, as well as up to another 324 general and flag 
officers for joint duty assignments. In addition, the numbers 
of general and flag officers actually on active duty are 
increased because several are excluded from counting against 
the statutory limits. Such exemptions include the 
superintendents of the military service academies, the general 
and flag officers assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence, and the Attending Physician to Congress. 
The effect of allowing the statutory limits and exemptions to 
remain in place would be to create what the committee believes 
is excessive room for the military services and the joint 
commands to generate future increases in the number of general 
and flag officers on active duty, notwithstanding the policy 
controls that the Secretary of Defense intends to impose to 
limit future growth.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management


            Section 511--Leadership of National Guard Bureau

    This section would establish the position of and criteria 
for the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, with the 
officer holding that position, following appointment by the 
President and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to 
serve in the grade of lieutenant general. This section would 
require that both the Chief and Vice Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau be designated by the Secretary of Defense as 
general officers to be counted against the pool of general and 
flag officers in joint duty assignments established by section 
526(b) of title 10, United States Code. This section would also 
establish a chain of succession for both the Chief and Vice 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau should either or both be 
absent or disabled. Finally, this section would authorize the 
incumbent holding the position of Director of the Joint Staff 
of the National Guard Bureau to continue to serve in the 
current grade of major general as the acting vice chief until 
the appointment of an officer to be the vice chief.

   Section 512--Preseparation Counseling for Members of the Reserve 
                               Components

    This section would amend section 1142 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require individual preseparation counseling be 
made available to members of the Reserve Component. This 
service is currently available for service members whose 
discharge from active duty is anticipated as of a specific 
date. This section would also clarify the 90-day requirement 
for preseparation counseling for Reserve Component members who 
have less than 90-days before release from active duty due to 
operational requirements. This allows preseparation counseling 
to begin as soon as possible within the remaining period of 
service.

 Section 513--Clarification of Applicability of Authority for Deferral 
of Mandatory Separation of Military Technicians (Dual Status) until Age 
                                   60

    This section would amend section 10216(f) of title 10, 
United States Code, to clarify that the Secretary of the Army 
and the Secretary of the Air Force may each implement policies 
to allow military technicians (dual status) who reach their 
mandatory separation date before age 60 the ability to apply 
for continued service. This section would also amend section 
10218(a)(3)(A)(i) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
that if a military technician (dual status) is given the 
opportunity to apply for continued service and is found to be 
qualified, the Secretary concerned may appoint the technician 
to another position as a military technician (dual status).

    Section 514--Modification of Eligibility for Consideration for 
 Promotion for Reserve Officers Employed as Military Technicians (Dual 
                                Status)

    This section would remove from promotion eligibility those 
Reserve officers of the Army and Air Force employed as dual 
status military technicians who had been retained on the 
Reserve Active-status list beyond the mandatory removal date 
normally required after reaching their maximum number of years 
of service.

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities


 Section 521--Findings regarding Unique Nature, Demands, and Hardships 
                          of Military Service

    This section would state the findings of Congress with 
regard to the nature, demands, and hardships of military 
service. This section would state that there is no 
constitutional right to serve in the military; military 
operations often require extraordinary sacrifices, to include 
the ultimate sacrifice; successful units are characterized by 
high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion; 
military living and working conditions are often Spartan and 
primitive characterized by forced intimacy and little privacy; 
and the Armed Forces must maintain policies that allow for 
recruiting of persons who can be expected to maintain the high 
standards for morale, good order and discipline, and unit 
cohesion.

  Section 522--Policy Addressing Dwell Time and Measurement and Data 
     Collection regarding Unit Operating Tempo and Personnel Tempo

    This section would amend section 991 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a 
policy that addresses dwell time for members of the Armed 
Forces. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a system for tracking and recording the 
number of days each member of the Armed Forces is deployed, 
prescribe policies and procedures for measuring operating tempo 
and personnel tempo, and maintain a central data collection 
repository to provide information for research, analysis, 
interagency reporting, and evaluation of programs and policies. 
This section would define the term ``dwell time''.

Section 523--Authorized Leave Available for Members of the Armed Forces 
                   Upon Birth or Adoption of a Child

    This section would increase the number of days of non-
chargeable leave from 21 to 42 that a service member may be 
granted following adoption of a child, if the service member is 
the primary caregiver of the child. The section would also 
provide that the other service member of a dual military couple 
may also be awarded 10 days of non-chargeable leave that may be 
taken at the same time as the primary caregiver is on adoption 
leave. This section would bring the adoption leave authority in 
line with the non-chargeable leave provided to service members 
who delivered a newborn child and dual military couples who 
were able to conceive a child naturally.

   Section 524--Extension of Authority To Conduct Programs on Career 
    Flexibility To Enhance Retention of Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would extend from December 31, 2012, to 
December 31, 2015, the authority for the Secretaries of the 
military departments to inactivate service members from active 
duty in order to allow them to meet personal or professional 
needs and return them to active duty following the period of 
inactivation.

Section 525--Policy on Military Recruitment and Enlistment of Graduates 
                          of Secondary Schools

    This section would require a secretary of the military 
department to treat persons who receive a diploma from a 
legally operating secondary school or otherwise completes a 
program of secondary education in compliance with the education 
laws of the State in which the person resides the same as a 
person who receives a diploma from a secondary school, as 
defined by section 7801 of title 20, United States Code. This 
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe a policy on recruitment and enlistment that 
incorporates following: (1) Means for identifying qualified 
persons to enlist; (2) Means for assessing how qualified 
persons fulfill their enlistment obligation; and (3) Means for 
maintaining data by each diploma source which can be used to 
analyze attrition rates. As a part of the policy, this section 
would require the Secretary of each military department to 
develop a recruitment plan that includes a marketing strategy 
for potential recruits with all types of secondary educations 
credentials, and to develop a communication plan to ensure the 
policy and recruitment plan are understood by military 
recruiters.
    The committee understands the Department of Defense's 
current recruiting policy is based on attrition data rather 
than secondary education diploma source. The committee believes 
the current policy needs to be revised to account for both the 
increasing numbers and the quality of alternative delivery 
methods of secondary education content, such as charter 
schools, online high schools, homeschooling, and hybrid 
schools. The committee also recognizes and encourages the 
Department of Defense, as well as the military services to 
continue to develop assessments and tools to better predict 
performance, behaviors, and attitudes in order to minimize 
attrition.

              Section 526--Navy Recruiting and Advertising

    This section would add $983,000 to Operations and 
Maintenance, Navy, Line 440 for Recruiting and Advertising for 
the professional development of youths, ages 11 to 17, to 
promote interest and skill in seamanship and aviation while 
instilling qualities that mold strong moral character.

             Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters


   Section 531--Procedures for Judicial Review of Military Personnel 
          Decisions Relating To Correction of Military Records

    This section would establish guidelines for judicial review 
of decisions by the boards for correction of military records 
operated by the Secretaries of the military departments. The 
guidelines would ensure that boards for correction of military 
records issue concise written statements that consist of the 
factual and legal basis for decisions that deny requested 
actions, along with a statement of the procedures and timing 
associated with seeking a judicial review. Further, the 
guidelines would require that judicial review be pursued within 
1 year of a final decision by a board for correction of 
military records. The guidelines would also ensure that service 
members seek review of their issues in the most efficient 
manner possible that reduces costs for both the individual and 
the Government.

    Section 532--Clarification of Application and Extent of Direct 
                     Acceptance of Gifts Authority

    This section would expand the eligibility of members of the 
Armed Forces and Department of Defense to receive gifts from 
non-profit organizations, private parties, and other sources 
outside the Department of Defense. The expansion would make 
eligible all members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat 
operation or a combat zone designated by the Secretary of 
Defense. Under current law, only those persons with a combat-
related injury are eligible. This section would also require 
that the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense 
would apply retroactively to injuries and illnesses incurred on 
or after September 11, 2001.

 Section 533--Additional Condition on Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
                                 Policy

    This section would amend the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal 
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-321) to require the Chief of Staff 
of the Army, the Chief Naval Operations, the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to submit 
to the congressional defense committees their written 
certification that repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law 
specified in section 654 of title 10, United States Code, will 
not degrade the readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, and morale 
of combat arms units and personnel of their respective armed 
force that are engaged in combat, deployed to a combat theater, 
or preparing for deployment to a combat theater.

          Section 534--Military Regulations Regarding Marriage

    This section would affirm the policy of section 3 of the 
Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) that the word ``marriage'' 
included in any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the 
Department of Defense applicable to a service member or 
civilian employee of the Department of Defense shall mean only 
a legal union between one man and one woman.

    Section 535--Use of Military Installations as Site for Marriage 
   Ceremonies and Participation of Chaplains and Other Military and 
             Civilian Personnel in Their Official Capacity

    This section would establish that marriages performed on 
DOD installations or marriages involving the participation of 
DOD military or civilian personnel in an official capacity, to 
include chaplains, must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act 
(1 U.S.C. 7), which defines marriage as only the legal union 
between one man and one woman.

      Subtitle E--Member Education and Training Opportunities and 
                             Administration


Section 541--Improved Access to Apprenticeship Programs for Members of 
  the Armed Forces who Are Being Separated from Active Duty or Retired

    This section would amend section 1144 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the secretary concerned to permit a 
member of the Armed Forces to participate in an apprenticeship 
program that provides employment skills training and assists 
them in transitioning into new careers in civilian life.

Section 542--Expansion of Reserve Health Professionals Stipend Program 
   To Include Students in Mental Health Degree Programs in Critical 
                          Wartime Specialties

    This section would expand the categories of health 
professional students eligible to receive a stipend to include 
students enrolled in an institution in a course of study that 
results in a degree in clinical psychology or social work.

  Section 543--Administration of United States Air Force Institute of 
                               Technology

    This section would amend chapter 901 of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a new section establishing a position of 
commandant of the United States Air Force Institute of 
Technology who is either an active duty officer of the Air 
Force in a grade not below the grade of colonel or a civilian 
who was retired from the Air Force in the grade not below the 
grade of brigadier general. This section would also establish a 
position of Provost and Academic Dean at the United States Air 
Force Institute of Technology.

     Section 544--Appointments to Military Service Academies from 
            Nominations Made by the Governor of Puerto Rico

    This section would amend section 4342(a)(7) of title 10, 
United States Code, to increase the number of nominations to 
the military service academies by the Governor of Puerto Rico 
from 1 to 3.

  Section 545--Temporary Authority To Wave Maximum Age Limitation on 
   Admission to United States Military Academy, United States Naval 
              Academy, and United States Air Force Academy

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to waive the maximum age limitation for admission to 
a military service academy from 23 to 26 for an otherwise 
qualified candidate. The candidate must be either (a) an 
enlisted member of the Armed Forces who was prevented from 
being admitted to a military service academy before they 
reached the maximum age as a result of service in a theater of 
operation for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring 
Freedom, or Operation New Dawn; or (b) a candidate who possess 
an exceptional record that sets them apart from other 
candidates, as determined by the secretary concerned. This 
section would limit the number of candidates admitted to each 
academy under this waiver authority to five per academic year. 
The Secretary of each military department shall track the 
number of graduates using this waiver authority who remain in 
the Armed Forces beyond the active duty service obligation. 
This section would require the secretary concerned is required 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
April 1, 2016, that displays the number of applications for 
waivers, the number of waivers granted by the secretary, the 
number admitted to the academy utilizing the waiver, and the 
number of graduates who were enlisted prior to admission to an 
academy that have remained in the service past their active 
duty service obligation, beginning with the class of 2009.

  Section 546--Education and Employment Advocacy Program for Wounded 
                      Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would add $15,000,000 to Operations and 
Maintenance, Defense Wide, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
Line 260 for the purpose of an Education and Employment 
Advocacy pilot program to engage Wounded Warriors early in 
their recovery.

             Subtitle F--Army National Military Cemeteries


             Section 551--Army National Military Cemeteries

    This section would establish the general authority of the 
Secretary of the Army to develop, operate, manage, administer, 
oversee, and fund the Army National Military Cemeteries, 
consisting of Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, and the 
U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, District of 
Columbia, in a manner and to standards that fully honor the 
service and sacrifices of the deceased members of the Armed 
Forces whose last resting places are in the respective 
cemeteries. This section would require the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations and policies for the Army National 
Military Cemeteries, to include eligibility for interment and 
inurnment, and mandate that annual budget requests for the 
cemeteries be provided to the congressional defense committees, 
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In promulgating eligibility 
regulations for interments and inurnments, the Secretary should 
ensure that they are consistent with the relevant provisions of 
title 38, United States Code. This section would place the 
cemeteries under the direct jurisdiction of Headquarters, 
Department of the Army, and authorize the position and set 
forth the responsibilities of the Executive Director of the 
cemeteries, who would report directly to the Secretary of the 
Army. This section would also require that by 1 June 2012 there 
be an operational electronic database at Arlington National 
Cemetery for recordkeeping and full accounting of all records 
of each specific gravesite and niche location at that cemetery 
and the identification of the individual interred or inurned at 
each specific gravesite and niche location. This section would 
also specify the qualifications, duties, and supervisory chain 
for the superintendents of the respective cemeteries. 
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of the 
Army to appoint an Advisory Committee on Arlington National 
Cemetery to provide periodic consultation and advice on the 
administration of Arlington National Cemetery, as well as on 
the erection of memorials and master planning for the cemetery. 
The committee urges the Secretary to include a representative 
from the National Cemetery Administration, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, as a member of the Advisory Committee to 
facilitate consistency and enable best practices to be 
interchanged. Finally, this section would require not only the 
Secretary of the Army to periodically inspect the cemeteries, 
but would also direct the Inspector General of the Department 
of Defense to inspect the cemeteries during fiscal years 2012 
and 2014. The Secretary would be required to provide the 
congressional defense committees a plan for corrective actions 
not later than 120 days following any inspection directed by 
the Secretary or conducted by the Inspector General.

Section 552--Inspector General of the Department of Defense Inspection 
                         of Military Cemeteries

    This section would require the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense to inspect the cemeteries at the United 
States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and 
the United States Air Force Academy to determine: the adequacy 
of and adherence to the statutes, policies, and regulations 
governing those cemeteries; the adequacy of the system employed 
to fully account for and accurately identify the remains 
interred or inurned in each; the history and adequacy of the 
oversight efforts of the Secretaries of the military 
departments who have jurisdiction for these cemeteries; and 
other matters. This section would also require the Inspector 
General to follow-up on that part of the 2010 report of the 
special inspection of Arlington National Cemetery pertaining to 
the Soldiers' and Airmen's National Cemetery. The follow-up 
inspection would be to determine whether the Secretary of the 
Army has fully and completely addressed the issues raised and 
the recommendations made in the 2010 report. This section would 
require the Secretaries of the military departments to submit a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2012, on the findings 
and recommendations of the inspection of their respective 
cemeteries, together with a plan for corrective action. 
Finally, this section would require the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense to inspect a statistically valid 
sample of the other cemeteries, both inside and outside the 
United States, that are under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretaries of the military departments. The purpose would be 
to assess the adequacy of and adherence to the statutes, 
policies, and regulations governing the management, oversight, 
operations, and interments and inurnments by those cemeteries. 
This section would also require the Inspector General to submit 
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2012, on the 
findings of these inspections, and then the Secretaries of the 
military services would be required to submit a plan for 
corrective actions to the same committees by April 1, 2013.

                Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home


    Section 561--Control and Administration by Secretary of Defense

    This section would establish that the administration of the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home, to include the provision of 
health care and medical care for the residents, is a 
responsibility of the Secretary of Defense.

 Section 562--Senior Medical Advisor Oversight of Health Care Provided 
              to Residents of Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would clarify the oversight responsibilities 
and reporting requirements of the Senior Medical Advisor with 
regard to the health care provided to the residents of the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Section 563--Establishment of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory 
                Council and Resident Advisory Committees

    This section would establish one Armed Forces Retirement 
Home Advisory Council, replacing the local boards established 
for each of the two facilities of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home. This section would specify the required expertise of the 
members of the advisory council and require the Secretary of 
Defense to designate a member to be the chairperson of the 
advisory council, who would be responsible for the operation of 
the council. This section also would require resident advisory 
committees at each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home. These committees, consisting of residents elected by the 
residents of each facility, would serve as a forum for ideas, 
recommendations, and issues to be discussed with the management 
of each facility.

    Section 564--Administrators, Ombudsmen, and Staff of Facilities

    This section would eliminate the positions of deputy 
director and associate director in each facility and establish 
the position of ombudsman. The ombudsman of each facility would 
have the authority to communicate with the administrator of the 
facility, the Chief Operating Officer of the Retirement Home, 
the Senior Medical Advisor, the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness. This section also would make a 
technical change in the title of the person responsible for the 
operations of each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
from ``Director'' to ``Administrator''.

               Section 565--Revision of Fee Requirements

    This section would repeal the obsolete transitional fee 
requirements for the Armed Forces Retirement Home and establish 
permanent fee requirements.

            Section 566--Revision of Inspection Requirements

    This section would revise the interval of inspections that 
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense would be 
required to make of each facility of the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home from annually to not less often than every 3 
years. This section also would clarify requirements for 
reporting and corrective actions.

Section 567--Repeal of Obsolete Transitional Provisions and Technical, 
                  Conforming, and Clerical Amendments

    This section would clarify that former members of the Coast 
Guard are eligible to be residents of the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home and that senior personnel officer and senior 
enlisted members of the Coast Guard are eligible to serve on 
the Armed Forces Retirement Home Advisory Council. This section 
also would repeal obsolete transitional provisions enacted as 
part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002 (Public Law 107-107), and make technical, conforming and 
clerical amendments.

             Subtitle H--Military Family Readiness Matters


 Section 571--Revision to Membership of Department of Defense Military 
                        Family Readiness Council

    This section would clarify the appointment options for 
family member representatives serving on the Department of 
Defense Military Family Readiness Council to include parents of 
members of the military services and would further designate 
Reserve Component representation on the council.

  Section 572--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational 
  Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
                Department of Defense Civilian Employees

    This section would provide $30.0 million for assistance to 
local educational agencies that have military dependent 
students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in 
average daily attendance per year. The section would also 
provide $10.0 million for assistance to local educational 
agencies that experience significant increases and decreases in 
the average daily attendance of military dependent students due 
to the military force structure changes, the relocation of 
military forces from one base to another, and from base 
closures and realignments.

 Section 573--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents who 
                    Are Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would amend title 2 of the Service Members 
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that 
issued a temporary custody order based solely on a service 
member being deployed or anticipating deployment to reinstate 
the custody order that was in effect immediately preceding the 
temporary order unless the court finds reinstatement is not in 
the best interest of the child. This section would also 
prohibit courts from using deployment or the possibility of 
deployment against a service member when determining the best 
interest of a child.

     Section 574--Center for Military Family and Community Outreach

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
establish a Center for Military Family and Community Outreach 
in cooperation with an historically black university to train 
social work students, social work faculty members and social 
workers to understand military life and enhance their 
competencies in providing services to military families.
    This section would also add $1,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance, Army to establish a Center for Military Family and 
Community Outreach.

 Section 575--Mental Health Support for Military Personnel and Families

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps for a collaborative program to train 
active duty military personnel to recognize combat stress 
disorder, suicide risk, substance addiction, risk-taking 
behaviors and family violence.

   Section 576--Report on Department of Defense Autism Pilot Projects

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on any pilot projects that the Department of 
Defense is conducting on autism services to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

  Subtitle I--Improved Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the 
                              Armed Forces


 Section 581--Director of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

    This section would require that the director of the Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office be a general or flag 
officer or an employee of the Department of Defense in a 
comparable senior executive service position.

 Section 582--Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault 
                            Victim Advocates

    This section would require a full time Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinator and a full time Sexual Assault Victim 
Advocate be assigned to each brigade or equivalent unit level 
of the armed forces. This section would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a training and certification 
program for Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual 
Assault Victim Advocates.
    This section would also add $45,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance for Defense Wide Activities for Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates and 
sexual assault prevention training and education, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 583--Sexual Assault Victims Access to Legal Counsel and 
  Services of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault 
                            Victim Advocates

    This section would entitle a member of the Armed Forces who 
is the victim of a sexual assault to legal assistance provided 
by a military legal assistance counsel who is certified as 
competent to provide such duties and assistance provided by a 
qualified Sexual Assault Victim Advocate. This section would 
also entitle a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who is 
the victim of a sexual assault and resides on or in the 
vicinity of a military installation, to the extent practicable, 
legal assistance provided by a military legal assistance 
counsel who is certified as competent to provide such duties as 
well as assistance provided by a qualified Sexual Assault 
Victim Advocate. This section would also require the Secretary 
of Defense to implement a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator-
led process by which a member or dependent who is the victim of 
a sexual assault may decline to participate in the 
investigation of the sexual assault.

Section 584--Privilege in Cases Arising Under Uniform Code of Military 
  Justice Against Disclosure of Communications Between Sexual Assault 
Victims and Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates and 
                         Certain Other Persons

    This section would create a confidentiality privilege in 
military tribunals for communication between sexual assault 
victims and Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Sexual 
Assault Victims Advocates, and DOD SAFE Help line personnel.

Section 585--Maintenance of Records Prepared in Connection with Sexual 
Assaults Involving Members of the Armed Forces or Dependents of Members

    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
maintain records relating to sexual assault involving members 
of the Armed Forces or their dependents for not less than 100 
years and provide the victim permanent access to the records 
maintained by the Department. In addition, this section would 
require that the victim be provided a copy of the court-martial 
proceedings in certain circumstances.

 Section 586--Expedited Consideration and Priority for Application for 
 Consideration of a Permanent Change of Station or Unit Transfer Based 
        on Humanitarian Conditions for Victim of Sexual Assault

    This section would require the secretary concerned to 
expedite the consideration and approval of an application for a 
permanent change of station or unit transfer submitted by a 
member of the Armed Forces who is a victim of sexual assault.

    Section 587--Training and Education Programs for Sexual Assault 
                    Prevention and Response Program

    This section would require the Secretary of each military 
department to provide sexual assault training and education for 
members of the armed forces at each level of professional 
military education. This section would also require sexual 
assault training and education for civilian employees.
    This section would also add $45,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance for Defense Wide Activities for Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates and 
sexual assault prevention training and education, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

                       Subtitle J--Other Matters


 Section 591--Limitations on Authority To Provide Support and Services 
 for Certain Organizations and Activities Outside Department of Defense

    This section would amend section 2012 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the service secretary concerned to 
request funds for projects under this authority in the annual 
budget submission to Congress. This section also would limit 
the annual obligation of funds to $10.0 million, beginning in 
fiscal year 2012. The heavy reliance on the Reserve Component 
over the past 10 years has reduced the need for sustainment 
training requirements of the Reserve Component.

 Section 592--Display of State, District of Columbia, and Territorial 
                         Flags by Armed Forces

    This section would amend section 2249b of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a new subsection requiring the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure that whenever the official flags of all 50 
states are displayed by the armed forces, the flags of the 
District of Columbia and the territories of the United States 
shall also be displayed.

             Section 593--Military Adaptive Sports Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a military adaptive sports program to provide 
adaptive sports programs to eligible wounded and injured 
members of the Armed Forces.

              Section 594--Wounded Warrior Careers Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out a career-development program with the Education and 
Employment Initiative for severely wounded warriors of the 
armed forces and their spouses. This section would also require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees plans for a cost-benefit analysis of the results of 
the services provided to severely wounded warriors and their 
families.
    This section would add $1,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide to carry out a career program for 
severely wounded warriors and their families.

    Section 595--Comptroller General Study of Military Necessity of 
               Selective Service System and Alternatives

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to study the criticality of the Selective Service 
System to the Department of Defense in meeting future manpower 
needs of the Armed Forces that are in excess of the ability of 
an all-volunteer force to provide and to determine the fiscal 
and national security impacts of disestablishing the Selective 
Service System. In addition, the section would require the 
study to assess alternatives to disestablishing the Selective 
Service System, as well as alternatives to registration for 
Selective Service. The Comptroller General's report of the 
study would be due not later than March 31, 2012, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services.

Section 596--Sense of Congress Regarding Playing of Bugle Call Commonly 
 Known as ``Taps'' at Military Funerals, Memorial Services and Wreath 
                           Laying Ceremonies

    This section expresses the sense of Congress that the bulge 
call known as Taps should be sounded by a live solo bugler at a 
military funeral, memorial service or wreath laying ceremonies.

 Section 597--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Yellow Ribbon Day

    This section would provide a sense of Congress supporting 
the goals and ideals of Yellow Ribbon Day in honor of members 
of the Armed Forces who are serving overseas apart from their 
families and loved ones.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible 
compensation programs are central to maintaining a high 
quality, combat ready force. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends an across-the-board pay raise of 1.6 percent to 
ensure that military pay rates keep pace with pay raise levels 
in the private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost 
Index. The committee recommends that the authorities for a wide 
array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and other 
compensation benefits set to expire on December 31, 2011, be 
extended for an additional year.
    The committee also recommends a series of provisions that 
would consolidate and simplify travel and transportation 
authorities to enhance the utility, flexibility, efficiency, 
and relevancy of the law in response to a complex and changing 
travel and transportation environment.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Commissary and Exchange Privileges for Non-Department of Defense 
                       Federal Employees Overseas

    The committee is aware of interest in extending shopping 
privileges at military commissaries and exchanges to non-
Department of Defense (DOD) government agency employees serving 
at locations outside the United States, and particularly those 
serving in U.S. territories and possessions (the territory of 
Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
Islands, the territory of American Samoa, and the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands). The committee recognizes that 
current policies generally restrict the access of non-DOD 
employees serving outside the United States. The committee 
understands that the limited exceptions to the rule are 
confined to employees serving at the location outside the 
United States on transportation agreements as defined in 41 CFR 
302-2.12. The committee believes that it may be cost efficient 
and in the best interests of U.S. missions outside the United 
States for all Federal employees to have access to available 
military commissaries and exchanges when the employee's agency 
reimburses the cost of extending such privileges to the 
Department of Defense. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 31, 2012, on the feasibility, 
propriety, and cost of a proposal for non-DOD Federal agencies 
to reimburse the Department of Defense for the cost of 
extending commissary and exchange privileges to employees of 
the agency serving outside the United States on transportation 
agreements.

             Consolidation of Disability Evaluation System

    The committee is encouraged by the initial feedback that 
the Department of Defense Integrated Disability Evaluation 
System has reduced the time required to deliver benefits from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to wounded warriors. 
However, the committee remains concerned that service members 
with similar disabilities are receiving disparate disability 
ratings because of different standards, policies, and 
procedures used by the Physical Evaluation Boards operated by 
the military departments. The committee believes that achieving 
consistent disability ratings regardless of service is an 
important objective that will ensure service members are 
treated equitably. The committee believes that one method for 
ensuring such consistent outcomes is to operate a consolidated 
disability evaluation system within the Department of Defense. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
August 1, 2012, on the feasibility, propriety, cost, and 
recommended legislation to implement such a consolidated 
disability evaluation system, if the Secretary determines that 
recommended legislation is appropriate and necessary.

             Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act

    The committee recognizes that the members of the Armed 
Forces and their families endure many financial hardships as a 
result of the intense operations tempo required to support 
ongoing military operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee believes that 
one of the most important benefits military families receive is 
the savings provided by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), 
the military exchanges, and other nonappropriated fund 
instrumentalities of the Armed Forces. The committee notes that 
the implementation of the Tax Increase Prevention and 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-222) requires a 3-
percent withholding tax to be collected from contractors doing 
business with the Government. The committee understands that 
one of the major consequences of the implementation of the Tax 
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 will be 
higher prices that manufacturers will charge for goods sold to 
all nonappropriated fund instrumentalities of the Armed Forces 
to help offset the 3-percent withholding tax.
    The committee remains convinced that the Secretary of the 
Treasury, through the resources of the Internal Revenue 
Service, has the ability to certify that the limited number of 
manufacturers that customarily contract with nonappropriated 
fund instrumentalities are not delinquent in paying taxes. The 
committee believes that the judicious use of the Internal 
Revenue Service's capability to determine the tax status of 
manufacturers can be used to exempt DeCA, the Army and Air 
Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the 
Marine Corps Exchange, the Veterans Canteen Service, the Coast 
Guard Exchange Service, and all morale, welfare, and recreation 
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities from the requirement to 
implement the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 
2005 without a loss of revenue to the U.S. Government.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances


      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2012 Increase in Military Basic Pay

    This section would increase basic pay for members of the 
uniform services by 1.6 percent, effective January 1, 2012. 
This raise would match the pay raise rate in the private sector 
as measured by the Employment Cost Index.

 Section 602--Resumption of Authority To Provide Temporary Increase in 
    Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances

    This section would extend the authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to temporarily increase the basic allowance for 
housing rates in an area where the housing market has been 
disrupted by one or more bases experiencing significant growth 
in assigned military personnel or a major disaster until 
December 31, 2012.

  Section 603--Lodging Accommodations for Members Assigned to Duty in 
         Connection with Commissioning or Fitting Out of a Ship

    This section would expand the authority of the Secretary of 
the Navy to provide lodging or compensation for housing to 
enlisted service members when such members are deprived of 
their quarters onboard ships that are under construction or 
repair. This section would provide the Secretary special 
authority for compensation of service members deprived of their 
quarters onboard a ship under construction at shipyards 
affected by the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 activities, 
specifying the shipyard at Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Bath, 
Maine.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


   Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
                     Authorities for Reserve Forces

    This section would extend the authority for the Selected 
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or 
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to 
certain high-priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus 
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment 
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the 
Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons 
with prior service, and income replacement payments for Reserve 
Component members experiencing extended and frequent 
mobilization for active duty service until December 31, 2012.

   Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
               Authorities for Health Care Professionals

    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational 
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the 
Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for 
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the 
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay 
for Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically 
short wartime specialties, the accession bonus for dental 
officers, the accession bonus for pharmacy officers, the 
accession bonus for medical officers in critically short 
wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 
specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties 
until December 31, 2012.

 Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 
                          for Nuclear Officers

    This section would extend the authority for the special pay 
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active 
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career 
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2012.

  Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37 
     Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities

    This section would extend the authority for the general 
bonus authority for enlisted members, the general bonus 
authority for officers, the special bonus and incentive pay 
authority for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay 
and bonus authorities, the special health professions incentive 
pay and bonus authorities, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay 
or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, 
and the retention bonus for members with critical military 
skills or assigned to high-priority units until December 31, 
2012.

 Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of 
                Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays

    This section would extend the authority for the aviation 
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the 
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for 
active members, the accession bonus for new officers in 
critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military 
occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the 
incentive bonus for transfer between Armed Forces, and the 
accession bonus for officer candidates until December 31, 2012.

 Section 616--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of 
                            Referral Bonuses

    This section would extend the authority for the health 
professions referral bonus and the Army referral bonus until 
December 31, 2012.

       Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Generally


   Section 621--One-Year Extension of Authority To Reimburse Travel 
    Expenses for Inactive-Duty Training outside of Normal Commuting 
                                Distance

    This section would extend the authority for the secretary 
concerned to reimburse members of the Selected Reserve for 
travel expenses resulting from inactive-duty training when the 
location of the training is outside normal commuting distance 
from the member's permanent residence until December 31, 2012.

     Section 622--Mandatory Provision of Travel and Transportation 
  Allowances for Non-Medical Attendants for Seriously Ill and Wounded 
                      Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretaries concerned to 
provide non-medical attendants a per diem allowance or 
reimbursement for the actual and necessary expenses of the 
travel, or a combination of the two, to support their travel 
when performing non-medical attendant duties. This section 
would result in the addition of a new budget item to section 
4401 of division D relating to military personnel accounts for 
non-medical attendant per diem in the amount of $20,000,000.

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


                          Section 631--Purpose

    This section would define the purpose of this subtitle is 
to consolidate and reform travel and transportation authorities 
in chapter 8 of title 37, United States Code, as required to 
address the complexities and changing nature of travel. This 
section would state that this initiative would meet mission 
needs and the needs of the members of the uniformed services by 
providing the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries 
concerned the authority to prescribe and implement travel and 
transportation policy that is simple, efficient, relevant, and 
flexible.

  Section 632--Consolidation and Reform of Travel and Transportation 
                 Authorities of the Uniformed Services

    This section would provide the definitions, the general 
authorities, and, where required, more specific authorities 
that would be the guidelines used by the Secretary of Defense 
and the secretaries concerned to prescribe travel and 
transportation programs. This section would also authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct pilot programs to test 
alternative methods for performing and reimbursing travel, for 
limiting the need for travel, and for reducing the 
environmental impact of travel. This section would also provide 
administrative guidelines for implementing the reform 
initiative, to include the need to issue regulations.

 Section 633--Old-Law Travel and Transportation Authorities Transition 
            Expiration Date and Transfer of Current Sections

    This section would transfer 32 existing travel and 
transportation authorities from chapter 7 of Title 37, United 
States Code, to chapter 8 of title 37, and redesignate each 
section with a new number.

    Section 634--Addition of Sunset Provision to Old-Law Travel and 
                       Transportation Authorities

    This section would amend each of the redesignated sections 
that would be installed in chapter 8 of title 37, United States 
Code, to reflect the existence of a transition expiration date 
by which the Secretary of Defense would be required to 
terminate use of the authorities provided within those 
sections.

             Section 635--Technical and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make the technical and clerical 
amendments necessary to facilitate the transfer of the 
redesignated sections from chapter 7 of title 37, United States 
Code to chapter 8 of title 37.

                   Section 636--Transition Provisions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan to transition all travel and transportation 
programs to operate under the authorities provided in the 
consolidation and reform authorities provided in subchapter I 
and subchapter II of chapter 8 of title 37, United States Code. 
This section would also provide the Secretary of Defense and 
the secretaries concerned the authority to modify current law 
to facilitate the transition process. Finally, this section 
would establish a transition period termination date as the end 
of a 10-year period beginning on the first day of the first 
month beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations


 Section 641--Expansion of Use of Uniform Funding Authority To Include 
    Permanent Change of Station and Temporary Duty Lodging Programs 
        Operated Through Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities

    This section would expand the use of the uniform funding 
authority authorized for morale, welfare, and recreation 
programs operated through nonappropriated fund 
instrumentalities to include permanent change of station and 
temporary duty lodging programs. This would allow the lodging 
facilities to consolidate and simplify their business practices 
and accounting systems by managing appropriated funds in 
accordance with the procedures, policy, and laws applicable to 
the expenditure of nonappropriated funds.

      Section 642--Contracting Authority for Nonappropriated Fund 
       Instrumentalities To Provide and Obtain Goods and Services

    This section would clarify that nonappropriated fund 
instrumentalities may enter into single-year or multi-year 
contracts with another element of the Department of Defense, 
another Federal agency, or a private-sector agency to provide 
or obtain goods and services beneficial to the military 
community and the effective management of such 
instrumentalities. This section also would authorize 
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to participate in 
partnerships with private entities to provide programs at no 
cost to the Government on military installations using 
Government facilities and other Government support resources.

Section 643--Designation of Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen 
   and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base as a Fisher House

    This section would deem that the Fisher House for the 
Families of the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air 
Force Base, Delaware, shall be considered a Fisher House for 
all other purposes established in law with regard to Fisher 
Houses and Fisher Suites.

    Section 644--Discretion of the Secretary of the Navy To Select 
       Categories of Merchandise To Be Sold by Ship Stores Afloat

    This section would grant the Secretary of the Navy the 
authority to use his discretion in determining what products 
will be sold by Navy ship stores.

   Section 645--Access of Military Exchange Stores System to Credit 
                Available Through Federal Financing Bank

    This section would authorize the Army and Air Force 
Exchange Service, Navy Exchange Service Command, and Marine 
Corps exchanges to borrow funding for business operations from 
the Federal Financing Bank.

         Section 646--Enhanced Commissary Stores Pilot Program

    This section would authorize the Defense Commissary Service 
to operate an enhanced commissary store at a military 
installation designated for closure or adverse realignment 
under a base closure law. Such stores would be empowered to 
sell alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and other products 
to be determined at prices at least 10 percent below the local 
community prices. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized 
to retain profits from the sale of such goods to offset the 
cost of operating the enhanced commissary store. Such enhanced 
commissary stores would be authorized to operate between 
October 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. This section would 
result in the addition of a new budget item to section 4501 of 
division D relating to Working Capital Fund for Defense 
Commissary Agency to support the operation of an enhanced 
commissary store in the amount of $2,000,000.

       Subtitle F--Disability, Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


Section 651--Monthly Amount and Duration of Special Survivor Indemnity 
  Allowance for Widows and Widowers of Deceased Members of the Armed 
 Forces Affected by Required Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for 
                 Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

    This section would increase existing monthly amounts and 
establish additional monthly amounts paid under the Special 
Survivor Indemnity Allowance to surviving spouses or former 
spouses of deceased service members who are denied the full 
amount of their annuity under the Survivor Benefit Program 
(SBP) due to the offset required by the receipt of Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. The section would also extend the termination 
date for the Special Survivor Annuity Allowance authority from 
October 1, 2017 to October 1, 2021.
    This ``widows' tax'' has long denied surviving family 
members the payment of their SBP benefits earned by the service 
of their spouses and paid for through premium reductions to 
retired pay. This section would provide an incremental step in 
the continuing effort to eliminate the DIC offset against SBP 
annuities. This section would provide the following monthly 
amounts for the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance, to 
include increases through fiscal year 2017 and newly 
established amounts for fiscal years 2018-2021:
    Fiscal year 2013 from $90 to $163;
    Fiscal year 2014 from $150 to $200;
    Fiscal year 2015 from $200 to $215;
    Fiscal year 2016 from $275 to $282;
    Fiscal year 2017 from $310 to $314;
    Fiscal year 2018 set at $9;
    Fiscal year 2019 set at $15;
    Fiscal year 2020 set at $20; and
    Fiscal year 2021 set at $27.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


     Section 661--Reimbursement of American National Red Cross for 
  Humanitarian Support and Other Services Provided to Members of the 
                   Armed Forces and Their Dependents

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense or 
the Secretary of a military department to reimburse the 
American National Red Cross for humanitarian support or other 
services approved by the Secretary that are provided to members 
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and their 
dependents. This section would result in the addition of a new 
budget item to section 4301 of division D relating to operation 
and maintenance for Defense-wide activities for reimbursement 
of the American

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee remains committed to ensuring that members of 
the Armed Forces, retirees, survivors, and their families have 
access to quality health care. The committee understands the 
challenge facing the Department of Defense as the cost of 
health care continues to grow. The committee recognizes that 
there are several factors that contribute to the cost growth of 
the Defense Health Program including the increased cost of 
health care in general, the increased number of wounded and 
injured service members as a result of the unprecedented 
survival rate from wounds on the battlefield, and the 
congressionally mandated expansion of health care benefits that 
are commensurate with the service of all components of the 
military services. However, the committee believes that even in 
the face of the growing cost of military health care, the 
military health system must provide for medical readiness and 
force health protection for our men and women in uniform and 
ensure that all other beneficiaries receive health care 
services. It is imperative that as the Nation continues to 
fight the global war on terrorism, the Department of Defense 
provides world-class health care for our wounded service 
members regardless of whether their wounds are physical or 
emotional.
    Sadly, the committee notes that members of the Armed 
Forces, particularly in the Reserve Components, continue to 
struggle with mental health issues that can ultimately result 
in suicide. Members of the Reserve Components often reside in 
rural communities and may not have access to mental health 
care. The committee recommends legislation to expand the 
capacity of the military health system to provide mental health 
care to members of the Reserve Components at the location of 
the unit during scheduled unit training and to provide training 
on suicide prevention and response. In addition, the committee 
recommends that the Department undertake several projects that 
would further advance the knowledge and understanding of 
traumatic brain injury and combat related mental health issues 
to enhance the care provided to members of the Armed Forces.
    The committee is concerned that when the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs pursue joint or 
combined health care operations, an insufficient amount of 
joint strategic analysis and planning is done. The committee 
includes a provision that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report to Congress addressing architecture 
to guide the transition for future projects among other 
information regarding the Department of Defense process before 
funds may be expended for future electronic health records.
    Finally, for the past few years, Congress has encouraged 
the Department of Defense to improve the health status of the 
beneficiary population and improve the cost-effectiveness of 
the care provided to beneficiaries by adopting proven 
practices. The committee notes that the designated providers, a 
series of health plans that have been part of the Military 
Health System for 30 years, have a proven record of excellence 
in disease management and prevention initiatives that improve 
health outcomes and satisfaction for military beneficiaries. 
The committee urges the Department to use this program as a 
model for strengthening and improving the heath status of 
military beneficiaries.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


         Automated Patient Management System for Air Evacuation

    The Committee remains committed to military medical 
research to further enhance the survivability of wounded and 
injured servicemembers during transport from a combat theater 
to definitive medical care. The Committee is aware that the 
Department of Defense has gained enormous experience in 
providing a seamless continuum of critical care to injured 
warfighters, creating a model used worldwide for damage control 
and intensive care. This care may begin on the battlefield, 
extend through air transport to intermediate care centers such 
as Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany, and culminate in 
the continental United States. The Committee understands the 
challenges encountered while ensuring optimal resuscitation are 
numerous, particularly in regard to curtailing the progression 
of shock and providing timely countermeasures to minimize 
further complications. The Committee urges the Department of 
Defense to continue efforts to develop an automated feedback 
loop resuscitation platform with the end goal of providing 
automated, optimal resuscitation during medical air evacuation.

  Clarification on Competition for Medical Research Consultation and 
                               Education

    The committee is aware of concern regarding section 178 of 
title 10, United States Code, which provides a special status 
relationship between a non-profit organization and the 
Department of Defense. The committee understands that this 
special status only applies to cooperative agreements with the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Other 
military health system medical research, consultation, and 
education activities should be conducted under competitive 
procedures. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
review the current processes and procedures of the various 
military health systems to ensure that fair and open 
competition for medical research, consultation, and education 
are being conducted, and submit a report on the results of the 
review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2012.

                        Clinical Social Workers

    The committee remains concerned about the increasing number 
of service members and their families who require mental health 
services. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
and the military services employ several methods to recruit, 
retain, and train mental health professionals to provide the 
necessary mental health care. In particular, the committee 
understands that clinically-trained social workers are uniquely 
qualified to address the mental health needs of individuals and 
families. The committee encourages the Department and the 
military services to continue to explore strategies to rapidly 
increase the number of mental health professionals, including 
clinically-trained social workers. The committee further 
encourages the Department and the military services to explore 
the possibility of collaborative programs with educational 
institutions to train mental health professionals.

  Cost Share for Acute Care Prescriptions under the TRICARE Pharmacy 
                                Program

    The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
proposal to increase the cost share for prescriptions at retail 
pharmacies will affect the ability of TRICARE beneficiaries, 
particularly those who live in areas distant from a military 
treatment facility, to receive prescriptions needed for acute 
medical conditions in the medically necessary timeframe. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
feasibility of maintaining the same cost share for the initial 
dispensing of acute care medications filled outside of a 
military treatment facility as if it were dispensed through the 
TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy. The committee further directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the findings and 
recommendations by March 30, 2012.

            Expansion of Spinal Cord Injury Research Program

    The committee recognizes spinal cord injuries are a serious 
combat-related condition affecting our servicemembers in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Congress established the Spinal Cord Injury 
Research Program in 2009 (Public Law 110-329) to support 
research into regenerating and repairing damaged spinal cords 
and improving rehabilitation therapies. Much of this research 
has focused on the acute-phase of spinal cord injuries, but 
more work must be done on the regeneration of chronic spinal 
cord injuries.
    The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense 
to foster research relating to developing treatments that could 
be applied during the chronic post-injury period of a spinal 
cord injury event, in addition to research currently being 
conducted on acute injuries.

                Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury

    The committee continues to support the national effort to 
identify and treat post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic 
brain injury occurring in members of the Armed Forces as a 
result of combat. The committee is aware of the challenges the 
Department of Defense continues to face in providing mental 
health care to service members and their families, as well as 
diagnosing and treating traumatic brain injury. The committee 
notes the diverse range of evolving concepts and technologies 
from the Nation's academic, scientific, and public health base 
that directly relate to mental health and traumatic brain 
injury. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to complete within 6 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act the following:
    (1) A 5-year pilot program under which the Secretary of 
Defense should establish a process to provide payment for any 
treatments demonstrated to be effective, including diagnostic 
testing of traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress 
disorder received by members of the Armed Forces in health care 
facilities other than military treatment facilities.
    (2) A neurophotonics program to develop tools for 
understanding, diagnosing, and treating traumatic brain injury 
and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
    (3) A program to use mindfulness-based cognitive skills 
training to help service members cope with stress and provide 
greater cognitive resources to improve adaptive functioning 
during deployment.
    (4) A program to train behavioral health professionals 
within the military health system to use biofeedback and other 
exposure therapies to treat service members with post-traumatic 
stress disorder and related anxiety disorders.

                Orthopedic Research for Extremity Injury

    The committee is aware of the increasing number and 
constantly evolving nature of blast injuries as a result of 
current military operations. The committee understands that 
technologies for treating blast-related battle injuries 
affecting the extremities continue to advance the care of these 
injuries. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of 
Defense to continue to invest in orthopedic research to provide 
military medical providers with the cutting-edge tools and 
technologies needed to treat injured service members.

              Physical Rehabilitation of Wounded Warriors

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for 
continuing to advance the treatment and rehabilitation of 
wounded warriors. The committee notes that the Department has 
been a leader in identifying innovative devices and 
technologies that assist in rehabilitating wounded and injured 
service members and ultimately help improve their lives and the 
well being of the troops. Further, the committee is aware that 
treating wounded and injured service members with physical 
therapy is a critical component of a comprehensive medical 
treatment plan. As such, the committee encourages the Secretary 
of Defense to investigate new and emerging medical physical 
therapy devices and technologies that could be used to improve 
the rehabilitation of wounded warriors.

  Recommendations for Cost Savings Under the TRICARE Pharmacy Program

    The committee is committed to partnering with the 
Department of Defense to reduce the cost of prescription drugs 
under the TRICARE Pharmacy Program. The committee understands 
that increasing use of generic drugs will reduce cost due to 
the substantial difference in price between brand and generic 
drugs. For the same drug product, generic drugs on average cost 
20 percent less than the price of brand drugs. Additionally, 
the committee notes that a number of high-use drugs are coming 
off patent in the next 2 years, increasing the opportunity for 
more cost-savings. Therefore, the committee urges the 
Department to raise its generic drug dispensing rate.

            Use of Simulation Technology in Medical Training

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
currently supplements combat trauma training with the use of 
live animals, known as ``live tissue training'', when no 
suitable simulation technology or alternative exists. The 
committee notes that this advanced training has contributed 
directly to the high survival rate for combat wounded service 
members, which has increased significantly compared to survival 
rates in past conflicts. According to the Department, 
simulators currently lack sufficient realism and the ability to 
replicate combat wounds and the associated emotional stressors 
combat medics face on the battlefield. In addition, simulators 
require rigorous verification and validation, which can only be 
achieved through empirical data collection. The committee also 
notes that the Department's use of live tissue training is 
strictly regulated by a number of Federal laws and policies, 
and is accredited by the Association for the Assessment and 
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, an international non-
profit organization that promotes the humane use of animals in 
science.
    On September 5, 2008, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics established the Use of 
Live Animals in Medical Education and Training Joint Analysis 
Team (ULAMET JAT) to address the use of live animals for DOD 
medical readiness training. ULAMET JAT, in its final report, 
found that several critical, high stakes medical procedures 
cannot be taught at present using simulation, including the 
treatment of certain penetrating chest wounds, amputation, and 
hemostasis. ULAMET JAT further noted in its final report that 
``live animal training is the singular opportunity to 
experience management of injuries in a living system prior to 
deployment to a combat zone. The next opportunity to use these 
skills very likely will be treating combat wounded.'' ULAMET 
JAT's final report also made nine recommendations related to 
the Department's policies on the use of animals in combat 
trauma training and plans to validate and adopt alternatives as 
they become viable, including simulation technologies.
    The committee believes that the use of animals in combat 
trauma training remains appropriate for critical, high-risk 
medical procedures, until such time that alternatives are 
developed, to provide combat medics an equal or better training 
experience that more closely replicates the combat wounds and 
emotional stressors encountered on the battlefield. However, 
the committee believes that the Department should continue to 
aggressively pursue alternatives to the use of live animals in 
combat trauma training.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to finalize and implement a strategy for the development of 
future technology to further refine, reduce, and replace the 
use of live animals in medical education and training. This 
implementation strategy should leverage the Department's 
science and technology and research, development, testing, and 
evaluation organizations, as well as private industry, to 
develop additional advanced training simulators and training 
aids, including animal-alternative training, to offer the most 
realistic, practical, transferable, and cost-effective training 
to all medical personnel. The Secretary is further directed to 
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, on this implementation 
strategy and the status of the recommendations contained within 
ULAMET JAT's final report.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits


Section 701--Annual Enrollment Fees for Certain Retirees and Dependents

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
career members of the uniformed services and their families 
make extraordinary sacrifices to protect freedom for all 
Americans and that those sacrifices constitute pre-payment for 
health care during retirement. This section would also limit 
any annual increase in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees to the 
amount equal to the percentage by which retiree pay is 
increased beginning October 1, 2012.

 Section 702--Provision of Food to Certain Members and Dependents Not 
   Receiving Inpatient Care in Military Medical Treatment Facilities

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
provide food and beverages at no cost to certain individuals 
receiving outpatient medical care at a military treatment 
facility, or is a family member providing care to an infant 
receiving inpatient medical care at a military treatment 
facility.

   Section 703--Behavioral Health Support for Members of the Reserve 
                     Components of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide access to mental health assessments to members of the 
Reserve Components during scheduled unit training and 
assemblies. In addition, the Secretary would be required to 
provide psychological health programs and training on suicide 
prevention and post-suicide response.

Section 704--Transition Enrollment of Uniformed Services Family Health 
          Plan Medicare-Eligible Retirees to TRICARE for Life

    This section would prohibit a Medicare eligible military 
retiree from enrolling in the managed care program of a 
designated provider after September 30, 2012.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration


                  Section 711--Unified Medical Command

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a unified medical command to provide medical services 
to the Armed Forces and other health care beneficiaries of the 
Department of Defense as defined in chapter 55 of title 10, 
United States Code. This section would also require the 
Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan to establish a 
unified medical command.

    Section 712--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Future 
                   Electronic Health Records Program

    This section would limit the amount of funds the Secretary 
of Defense may obligate or expend for future electronic health 
programs until 30 days after the date that the Secretary 
submits a report to the congressional defense committees that 
addresses: the architecture to guide the transition of the 
electronic health records of the Department of Defense to a 
future state that is cost-effective and interoperable; a 
process for selecting investments in information technology; 
the report required by section 715 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383); and the effectiveness of the Interagency Program Office.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Section 721--Review of Women-Specific Health Services and Treatment for 
                   Female Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a comprehensive review on the availability, efficacy, 
and adequacy of health care services for female members of the 
Armed Forces. The results of the review shall be submitted to 
the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2012.

   Section 722--Comptroller General Reviews of Department of Defense-
 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Project

    This section would reduce the frequency of reviews 
conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States as 
required by section 1701 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

   Section 723--Comptroller General Report on Contracted Health Care 
           Staffing for Military Medical Treatment Facilities

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a review of the contracting practices 
used by the military departments to provide health care 
professional services to members of the Armed Forces, 
dependents, and retirees. The Comptroller General is required 
to submit the findings of this review to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
March 31, 2013.

               Section 724--Treatment of Wounded Warriors

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, for rapid clinical evaluation and 
deployment of novel treatment strategies for wounded service 
members with an emphasis on musculo-skeletal injuries.

            Section 725--Cooperative Health Care Agreements

    This section would add $500,000 to the Defense Health 
Program for cooperative health care agreements between military 
installations and local or regional health care systems.

        Section 726--Prostate Cancer Imaging Research Initiative

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense Health Program for prostate cancer 
imaging research.

Section 727--Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and 
                         Traumatic Brain Injury

    This section would add $2,000,000 to the Defense Health 
Program for the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological 
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to enhance efforts to 
disseminate post-deployment mental health information.

 Section 728--Collaborative Military-Civilian Trauma Training Programs

    This section would add $3,000,000 to the Defense Health 
Program for collaborative military-civilian trauma training 
programs between military installations and local or regional 
health care systems.

                  Section 729--Traumatic Brain Injury

    This section would add $1,000,000 to the Defense Health 
Program to develop national medical guidelines regarding the 
post-acute rehabilitation of individuals with traumatic brain 
injury.

   Section 730--Competitive Programs for Alcohol and Substance Abuse 
                               Disorders

    This section would add $5,000,000 to the Defense Health 
Program to support a competitive program for translational 
research centers tasked with addressing alcohol and substance 
abuse issues.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues its robust oversight of the 
acquisition system of the Department of Defense and closely 
monitors implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition 
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and the Improve 
Acquisition Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-383)). The committee 
recommends several authorities to assist the DOD in managing 
contracts in support of contingency operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq. The committee 
also includes a provision to require sustainment planning 
earlier in the development of a weapon system with the intent 
to reduce total-ownership costs and improve system performance. 
The committee addresses a variety of other matters of 
acquisition policy, to include matters related to the 
industrial base and strategic materials.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


            Acquisition Involving Federal Prison Industries

    The committee continues to be concerned that in 
implementing section 827 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) the Department of 
Defense (DOD) is not complying with the intent of the law. The 
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 required the 
Secretary of Defense to: review the list of product categories 
used in complying with section 827 of Public Law 110-181 to 
ensure that these categories contain similar market 
participants and are consistent with the need to protect the 
Department's access to the commercial market; to establish 
consistent dates for the publication of an updated list; and to 
notify industry of such dates. In the same report, the 
committee also directed the Secretary to conduct a 
comprehensive review of contract awards made to Federal Prison 
Industries (FPI) to ensure that non-competitive awards are not 
being made to FPI inappropriately. The committee directs the 
Secretary to brief the congressional defense committee on the 
progress of the review and any changes made to DOD policy, 
regulation or processes determined to be necessary as a result 
of the review by July 30, 2011.

                    Aircraft Specialty Metal Content

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, for each 
military unique aircraft and engine procured by the Department 
of Defense in fiscal year 2012, to assess the extent to which 
such aircraft or engine includes specialty metal not melted or 
produced in the United States. The Secretary of Defense should 
submit a report of the findings of the assessment to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by October 30, 2012. The assessment should include a 
description by aircraft or engine type of the average amount of 
specialty metal contained in such aircraft or engine that was 
not melted or produced in the United States, expressed as a 
percentage of the total specialty metal content of the aircraft 
or engine, and an itemized description of the use of specialty 
metal not melted or produced in the United States for each 
aircraft or engine type, including specific references to the 
exceptions provided by section 2533b of title 10, United States 
Code, per component or subsystem containing specialty metal not 
melted or produced in the United States.

                         Army Contract Bundling

    The committee is concerned that Army contracting officers 
are consolidating contracts, particularly for base support 
functions, which have traditionally been provided by small 
businesses. The committee believes that providing business 
opportunities to small businesses, including those owned by 
veterans and service-disabled veterans, is critical to our 
national economy and to the local communities in which Army 
installations are located. The committee is concerned that 
consolidation of contracts currently awarded to small and 
disadvantaged businesses may be a result of a shortfall of Army 
contracting personnel and may result in negative effects in the 
long-term. The committee is aware that section 313 of the Small 
Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240) states that 
``the head of a federal agency may not carry out an acquisition 
strategy that includes a consolidation of contract requirements 
of the federal agency with a total value of more than 
$2,000,000, unless the senior procurement executive or Chief 
Acquisition Officer for the federal agency, before carrying out 
the acquisition strategy (A) conducts market research; (B) 
identifies any alternative contracting approaches that would 
involve a lesser degree of consolidation of contract 
requirements; (C) makes a written determination that the 
consolidation of contract requirements is necessary and 
justified; (D) identifies any negative impact by the 
acquisition strategy on contracting with small business 
concerns; and (E) certifies to the head of the federal agency 
that steps will be taken to include small business concerns in 
the acquisition strategy.''
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to review Department of the Army contracting actions to ensure 
compliance with the provisions of the Small Business Jobs Act 
of 2010, and to brief the congressional defense committees on 
the findings of the review by December 1, 2011. The review 
shall include an assessment of the Army's processes to allow 
opportunities for small businesses to provide goods and 
services in response to Army requirements, and shall identify 
challenges facing the Army acquisition workforce, including any 
shortage of trained personnel to administer contracts.

                   Beryllium Stockpile Modernization

    Since 2005, the Department of Defense has supported a 
public-private partnership for the construction of a modern 
high purity beryllium refinery under title 3 of the Defense 
Production Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-774). High purity 
beryllium has been identified as ``both a strategic and 
critical material'' by the Department of Defense Strategic 
Materials Protection Board.
    With the beryllium refinery currently starting production, 
the committee encourages the Department to reevaluate and 
modernize its beryllium inventory in the National Defense 
Stockpile. Much of the beryllium currently in the stockpile is 
either obsolete or in a non-economic form. The committee 
encourages the Department to consider upgrading its beryllium 
inventory, in accordance with the recommendation of the former 
National Materials Advisory Board, to a rotating buffer 
stockpile which will enable the forms of beryllium in the 
stockpile to be updated on a continual basis. Such an approach 
would ensure that the stockpile always contains the grades of 
beryllium needed to meet critical defense needs and does not 
become obsolete.

Common Database for Tracking Contracts and Contractor Personnel in Iraq 
                            and Afghanistan

    Section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by section 
813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of State, and the Administrator, United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID) to enter into a 
memorandum of understanding regarding matters relating to 
contracts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. Among the matters to be addressed in this 
memorandum, section 861 of Public Law 110-181 required the 
agencies to identify and implement a common database for 
tracking contracts and contractor personnel in Iraq and 
Afghanistan across the three agencies. In response, the 
agencies agreed through a series of memoranda of understanding 
to use the Department of Defense's Synchronized Predeployment 
Operational Tracker (SPOT) system as the common database.
    The committee is concerned that, while progress has been 
made, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and 
USAID have still not fully implemented the requirements of 
section 861 of Public Law 110-181. The committee is pleased to 
note that the SPOT database has been modified to accept 
aggregate-level data on the number of personnel employed by 
nongovernmental organizations (NGO), alleviating the concerns 
of the NGOs that providing the U.S. Government detailed 
personal information for their Iraqi and Afghan employees puts 
the neutrality of the NGOs at risk and endangers the safety and 
security of these local national employees. The committee 
emphasizes that the statute only requires an accounting of 
total numbers of personnel, unless those personnel are 
performing private security functions. However, the committee 
remains concerned that 4 years after enactment of section 861 
the SPOT database still does not include all of the information 
required, including basic financial information on contracts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and the number of personnel killed or 
wounded while working on such contracts. The committee 
encourages the Department of Defense, the Department of State, 
and USAID to work together to quickly resolve these outstanding 
statutory requirements.
    The Government Accountability Office and the Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction have stressed 
to the committee that a complete and fully functional common 
database would not only improve interagency coordination and 
management of contracts, but also improve transparency, 
oversight, and audits of Government spending. The committee 
agrees, and emphasizes that an accurate and complete common 
database is not only required by section 861 of Public Law 110-
181, but is also in the best interest of the agencies, 
Congress, and the public.

            Competition in Construction Acquisition Programs

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has inappropriately advocated a construction acquisition 
program that values speed in execution over savings. The 
committee notes that the Naval Facilities Engineering Command 
has awarded a global Multiple Award Task Order Contract, which 
may serve to expedite construction processes but also creates 
barriers to competition, increases the overall cost to 
construction, and may aggregate the overall risk to the 
project. While this contracting approach is appropriate in some 
emergency situations that require speed in execution, the 
committee believes that this approach is inappropriate for 
routine construction requirements.
    The committee is concerned that construction contracts such 
as the Navy's global Multiple Award Task Order Contract impede 
the Department in receiving the best construction contract 
pricing because it does not allow consideration of locally 
based, task order type construction contracts. Furthermore, the 
committee is concerned that the Department is not complying 
with congressional intent to foster the participation of small 
business concerns as prime contractors, subcontractors, and 
suppliers, and may not be in compliance with Federal 
Acquisition Regulations regarding small business concerns and 
contract bundling determination and justification.
    The committee believes that the Department should minimize 
barriers to competition and ensure the widest participation of 
construction contractors to the military construction programs 
in order to ensure best value for the taxpayer. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review 
of this issue and provide a report on the findings to the 
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2011. The review 
shall include, as a minimum:
          (1) A cost benefit analysis of the regional task 
        order construction contracts compared with a locally 
        based, task order contract or a single construction 
        project acquisition process. Such an assessment should 
        include a review of potential construction contractors 
        that are eliminated from competition and the potential 
        savings that would be expected by an expanded 
        contractor field participating in the construction 
        acquisition process;
          (2) An assessment of the programs or policies to 
        determine if there are statutory or regulatory barriers 
        in providing a locally based construction contract;
          (3) An assessment of the Naval Facilities Engineering 
        Command's Multiple Award Task Order Contract to 
        determine compliance with Federal Acquisition 
        Regulations related to contract bundling and small 
        business considerations; and
          (4) An assessment on the construction contract 
        bundling definitions to determine whether an expansion 
        of the definition is appropriate to ensure small 
        business equities are adequately protected.

  Cost Escalators in Major Weapons Systems Life Cycle Cost Estimations

    The committee is aware that cost escalators such as 
inflation, geopolitical risk, and market influences affect 
long-term cost considerations for major weapons systems. The 
committee believes that accurate appraisals of life cycle cost 
escalations, based on current and reliable economic indicators, 
are critical to effective programmatic evaluation and overall 
efficiency. The committee is concerned that methods currently 
employed by the Department of Defense to assess the costs of 
acquiring, developing, producing, operating, sustaining, and 
disposing of major weapons systems, their subsystems, and 
components are insufficient to produce realistic life cycle 
cost assessments. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the Department's 
methods for estimating the life cycle costs of major weapons 
programs, including its standards and procedures for assessing 
and maintaining currency of cost escalators, and to brief the 
congressional defense committees on the findings of that review 
on, or before, September 30, 2011.

               Defense Contract Audit Agency Improvements

    The committee is concerned over the continuing staffing 
shortages and audit backlogs experienced by the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which have resulted in 
significant delays in conducting audits and could negatively 
impact the acquisition process. Not only do delays hinder the 
Federal Government's ability to recoup any monies owed to it, 
the delays also potentially limit competition by limiting the 
ability of companies to participate in the Federal Government 
contracting process. The committee has heard from small, 
medium, and large contractors regarding the lack of timeliness 
of audits and the decreasing quality of those audits. In 
particular, contractors have voiced concern over the 
elimination of ``inadequate-in-part'' findings in favor of the 
use of ``pass-fail'' audits which do not distinguish between 
minor and major violations. The committee is aware that 
unintended consequences may result from such actions. 
Contractors have informed the committee that it may take 
several months, or years, for DCAA to revalidate the 
corrections a contractor has taken to fix any inadequacies 
found in a contractor's business system; such delays affect the 
ability of contractors to receive payment on current contracts 
or to submit bids on future contracts, as they may be deemed 
non-responsive if their systems have not been approved.
    The committee believes that improved communication is one 
step to addressing the problems that contractors have raised 
and commends DCAA for publishing a revised ``rules of 
engagement'' which encourages timely and meaningful 
communication with contractors regarding scope and any initial 
findings. In addition, the committee is aware that DCAA has 
undertaken other efforts aimed at improving the collaboration 
between DCAA and the Defense Contract Management Agency and to 
better realign the resources between the two agencies. While 
the committee commends DCAA for taking these steps to improve 
its audit capabilities, the committee is concerned that as part 
of the Secretary of Defense's efficiencies initiative, DCAA has 
been tasked to reduce administrative support staff and 
revalidate its requirement for additional auditors over the 
next 5 years. The committee cautions the Secretary that 
although short-term savings may be generated by a reduction in 
staff support, it may result in hampering efforts to improve 
DCAA performance and may actually result in an increase of 
costs to the Department.
    The committee directs the Director of the Defense Contract 
Audit Agency to review the decision to eliminate the use of 
inadequate-in-part findings in favor of instituting a pass-fail 
standard, and to make recommendations for improvements in the 
timeliness of the evaluation and the re-evaluation of 
contractor business systems. In addition, the Director should 
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by 
December 15, 2011 on the results of the evaluation as well as 
the recommendations to improve timeliness, reduce backlog, and 
improve audit quality.

            Nunn-McCurdy Breach Due to a Quantity Reduction

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for fiscal year 
2012 that would amend section 2433a of title 10, United States 
Code, to reduce some of the requirements the Department must 
perform in the event it is determined that a critical cost 
threshold breach (referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy breach) was 
caused primarily by changes in the quantity of items to be 
procured. The proposal would eliminate the requirement for 
written certification by the Secretary of Defense to Congress 
that, among other things, continuation of the program is 
essential to national security, there are no lower cost 
alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable 
capability to meet the requirement, and the new cost estimates 
for the program have been deemed reasonable by the Director of 
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE).
    The committee is aware that in order to make the 
determination that the breach was caused primarily by changes 
in quantity of the items to be procured, the Director of 
Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses would still be 
required to conduct a root cause analysis. Additionally, the 
Director of CAPE would still be required to quantify the cost 
impact of the causal effects. Therefore, the committee believes 
that little efficiency would be gained by the Department's 
proposal and that the Secretary's certification and delivery of 
the root cause analysis and supporting reassessment 
documentation to Congress is not unduly burdensome and is 
necessary for congressional oversight. Moreover, in the event 
that a program's cost increases enough to trigger a Nunn-
McCurdy breach, the committee believes that the Secretary is 
obligated to determine whether there are lower cost 
alternatives to the program which would provide acceptable 
capability, regardless of the underlying reason for the cost 
increase. Therefore, the committee has not included this 
proposed provision in this Act.

     Pilot Programs for Rapid Acquisition of Information Technology

    The committee is encouraged by Department of Defense 
efforts to develop a rapid acquisition process for information 
technology (IT) as required by section 804 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84). The committee understands that creating and implementing 
the processes and structures to manage complex IT systems is a 
deliberate process, but should nonetheless allow for the 
flexibility to experiment with various options before codifying 
the result. The committee is concerned that the current 
development process has limited the ability to conduct pilot 
projects that would provide real-world experience with 
different management options and has unnecessarily slowed down 
IT acquisition reform.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to 
expand the number and types of pilot projects it conducts to 
inform the current acquisition reform process. For example, 
pilot projects should be expanded beyond business systems to 
include other existing programs, such as the Joint Space 
Operations Center Mission System or the Navy's Next Generation 
Enterprise Network. The committee believes that this could 
provide information to show how rapid IT acquisition could 
function for command and control systems or enterprise data 
services.

                  Small Business Subcontracting Goals

    The committee notes that while current statutes and 
regulations require set-asides for small business subcontracts, 
prime contractors are prohibited from accounting for the total 
dollar amount flowing to small businesses. Currently, if a 
contractor that is not a small business is identified as the 
primary first-tier subcontractor, a prime contractor is 
prevented from reporting any of the other subcontract dollars 
that may flow to small businesses; this occurs regardless of 
whether small business subcontractors comprise either the 
remainder of the first tier or all other subcontracting tiers. 
The committee believes that allowing prime contractors to 
report small business subcontracting at all tiers would 
demonstrate the full extent of small business participation on 
Department of Defense contracts. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to develop procedures for 
fully accounting for small business participation at all tiers 
on a Department of Defense contract, and to publish such 
procedures in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation if the 
Secretary determines that to be necessary to fully implement 
such procedures. The Department shall ensure that the 
procedures fully account for small business participation, but 
do not permit duplicate reporting of small business 
participation. The Department shall provide to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a copy of the subcontracting accounting procedures and 
any proposed regulation by March 30, 2012.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management


 Section 801--Requirements Relating to Core Logistics Capabilities for 
   Milestone A and Milestone B and Elimination of References to Key 
                        Decision Points A and B

    This section would amend section 2366a and 2366b of title 
10, United States Code, to require the Milestone Decision 
Authority to certify that a preliminary analysis of core 
logistics capabilities for each major weapons system has been 
performed as entrance criteria for entering the technology 
development phase of a major defense acquisition program 
(milestone A) and that the core logistics requirements and 
associated sustaining workloads for the weapons system have 
been determined as entrance criteria for entering the 
engineering and manufacturing development phase (milestone B). 
This section also would require certification that relevant 
sustainment criteria and alternatives were sufficiently 
evaluated and addressed in the initial capabilities document to 
support an analysis of alternatives and the development of key 
performance parameters for sustainment of the program 
throughout its projected life cycle. Furthermore, this section 
would require certification that life-cycle sustainment 
planning has identified and evaluated relevant sustainment 
costs through development, production, operation, sustainment, 
and disposal of the program, and any alternatives, and that 
such costs are reasonable and have been accurately estimated.
    The committee is aware that the Secretary issued formal 
guidance on the operation of the defense acquisition system on 
October 18, 2010, which directed space systems to be subject to 
milestone A and milestone B requirements. Therefore, this 
section also would strike references to ``key decisions 
points'' in section 2366a and 2366b of title 10, United States 
Code.

  Section 802--Revision to Law Relating to Disclosures to Litigation 
                          Support Contractors

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
include a new section relating to the disclosure of 
confidential commercial, financial or proprietary information, 
technical data, or other privileged information to a litigation 
support contractor for the sole purpose of providing litigation 
support. This section would require the litigation support 
contractor to execute a contract with the Government agreeing 
to or acknowledging that any information furnished will be used 
only for the purpose stated in the contract, that the 
litigation support contractor will take all precautions 
necessary to protect the sensitive information, that the 
sensitive information will not be used by the litigation 
support contractor to compete against the third party for 
contracts, and that a violation of any of the above would be 
basis for the Government to terminate the contract. This 
section would also repeal a superseded provision in section 
2320 of title 10, United States Code.

    Section 803--Extension of Applicability of the Senior Executive 
     Benchmark Compensation Amount for Purposes of Allowable Cost 
                  Limitations under Defense Contracts

    This section would amend section 2324 of title 10, United 
States Code, by expanding the existing executive compensation 
cap to apply to any individual performing on a contract rather 
than certain management employees. The committee is aware that 
the Defense Contract Audit Agency has shown that there are 
lower-level executives not subject to the cap and non-executive 
employees who receive compensation in excess of the benchmark 
compensation amount. The committee believes that this section 
would reduce the risk of excessive individual compensation 
charged to defense contracts.

                 Section 804--Supplier Risk Management

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
manage supplier risk by directing contracting personnel to use 
a business credit reporting bureau, or other objective sources 
of business information, to evaluate supplier risk on all 
Department of Defense (DOD) contract actions. This section also 
would require the use of automated, off-the-shelf products to 
identify suppliers by location and to monitor suppliers for 
events that may affect their performance, such as a merger or 
acquisition, or bankruptcy filing.
    The committee notes that while the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation requires that Federal contracting officials 
determine contractor responsibility prior to contract award, 
adherence within the Department to this requirement has been 
inconsistent, often varying both among, and within, individual 
contracting offices. In addition, the evaluation of supplier 
risk traditionally has been treated as a one-time event, rather 
than an ongoing responsibility. As a result, DOD contracting 
personnel frequently have limited or belated visibility into 
changes occurring after contract award that could impact a 
supplier's ability to meet their requirements.
    The committee notes that commercial firms increasingly have 
sought solutions to manage supplier risk throughout the 
contract lifecycle. In addition, the committee is aware that 
the Department of Veterans Affairs has employed a business 
credit reporting system to assist its acquisition personnel 
with contractor responsibility determinations. The committee 
believes that such a supplier risk management initiative would 
benefit the Department of Defense through cost avoidance (by 
reducing its exposure to high-risk suppliers), increased 
efficiency, and a greater return on investment.
    The committee also believes that such a tool could be 
implemented in a manner that focuses on those suppliers that 
are most likely to be a risk, and could also allow the 
Department of Defense to evaluate supplier risk with lower-tier 
suppliers.

    Section 805--Extension of Availability of Funds in the Defense 
                 Acquisition Workforce Development Fund

    This section would make technical amendments to section 
1705 of title 10, United States Code, the Defense Acquisition 
Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The committee notes that 
this section would enable all funds credited, transferred, 
appropriated, or deposited to the DAWDF to remain available for 
expenditure in the fiscal year for which it is credited and the 
2 succeeding fiscal years.

        Section 806--Defense Contract Audit Agency Annual Report

    This section would require the Director of the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency to submit an annual report that 
summarizes its audit activities during the previous fiscal 
year, including significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies, 
a statistical table showing the total number of audit reports, 
the length of time taken for each audit, and the questioned 
dollar value, as well as recommendations for corrective 
actions. The report also would include a summary of any backlog 
of pending contractor audits and a rationale for the cause of 
the backlog. This section would require the annual report to be 
provided to the congressional defense committees by March 30 of 
each year and be made available on a public website within 60 
days after receipt of the report by Congress. The committee 
believes that this section would increase transparency and 
accountability, and facilitate congressional oversight of the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Subtitle B--Amendements to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 
                            and Limitations


Section 811--Calculation of Time Period Relating to Report on Critical 
             Changes in Major Automated Information Systems

    This section would amend the requirement for when a 
critical change report would be needed for a Major Automated 
Information System (MAIS). Currently, a report is required when 
a MAIS investment has failed to achieve a full deployment 
decision within 5 years after funds were first obligated for 
the program. This section would amend that to require a 
critical change report within 5 years after contract award. 
This section would also specify that any time under which the 
contract award is under protest would not be counted against 
this 5-year limit.

Section 812--Change in Deadline for Submission of Selected Acquisition 
                       Reports from 60 to 45 days

    This section would amend section 2432(f) of title10, United 
States Code, to require the comprehensive annual Selected 
Acquisition Reports to be delivered to Congress not later than 
45 days after the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year. 
The committee believes that this will enhance congressional 
oversight.

Section 813--Extension of Sunset Date for Certain Protests of Task and 
                        Deliver Order Contracts

    This section would amend section 4106(f) of title 41, 
United States Code, to extend the sunset date to September 20, 
2016. The committee is aware that section 843 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) temporarily expanded the Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) jurisdiction to hear bid protests by authorizing 
it to hear protests on task and delivery orders valued in 
excess of $10.0 million. The authority was provided with a 
sunset in 2011 in order to allow Congress to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the expanded jurisdiction and gauge the impact 
of increased workload on GAO. Section 825 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) extended the sunset date for bid protests on task 
and delivery orders for defense acquisitions until September 
30, 2016. However, section 825 did not address civilian agency 
acquisitions.

   Section 814--Clarification of Department of Defense Authority To 
               Purchase Right-Hand Drive Passenger Sedans

    This section would amend section 2253 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the cost threshold of $30,000 per 
vehicle applies specifically to right-hand drive passenger 
sedans and does not apply to right-hand drive vehicles such as 
ambulances, fire trucks, or buses.

Section 815--Amendment Relating to Buying Tents, Tarpaulins, or Covers 
                         from American Sources

    This section would amend section 2533a of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify that the domestic source requirement 
for tents, tarpaulins, or covers includes the materials and 
components of tents, tarpaulins, or covers.

               Section 816--Para-Aramid Fibers and Yarns

    This section would eliminate the authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to procure articles containing para-aramid fibers 
and yarns manufactured in certain foreign countries, by 
repealing section 807 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1999 (Public Law 105-261). 
This section also would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
issuing a solicitation requiring proposals submitted pursuant 
to such solicitation to include the use of para-aramid fibers 
and yarns.

 Section 817--Repeal of Sunset of Authority to Procure Fire Resistant 
    Rayon Fiber from Foreign Sources for the Production of Uniforms

    This section would make permanent the authority to procure 
fire resistant rayon fiber for the production of uniforms from 
foreign sources by striking subsection (f) of section 829 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181), as amended by section 821 of the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383).

Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of Contingency 
                   Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan


     Section 821--Restrictions on Awarding Contracts in Support of 
   Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan to Adverse Entities

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to void a 
contract, or require the prime contractor to void a subcontract 
under a contract, in support of contingency operations in the 
Republic of Iraq or the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, if the 
Secretary determines that a foreign entity or foreign 
individual performing on the contract, or a task or delivery 
order, is directly engaged in hostilities or is substantially 
supporting forces that are engaged in hostilities against the 
U.S. or its coalition partners.

  Section 822--Authority To Use Higher Thresholds for Procurements in 
                   Support of Contingency Operations

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to apply 
a simplified acquisition threshold of $1.0 million and micro-
purchase threshold of $25,000 for contracting activities 
supporting contingency operations in the Republic of Iraq or 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, regardless of the location 
of the contracting activity.

   Section 823--Authority To Examine Records of Foreign Contractors 
 Performing Contracts in Support of Contingency Operations in Iraq or 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
examine the records of a foreign contractor, or a foreign 
subcontractor, performing a contract in support of contingency 
operations in the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. This authority would not apply if the contract was 
being performed by a contractor or a subcontractor that is a 
foreign government, or agency of a foreign government, or if 
precluded by applicable laws. This section also would require 
the Secretary to issue guidance, not later than 30 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, to implement this section.

                        Section 824--Definitions

    This section would define certain terms used in this 
subtitle.

              Subtitle D--Defense Industrial Base Matters


  Section 831--Assessment of the Defense Industrial Base Pilot Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
assessing the defense industrial base pilot program of the 
Department of Defense by March 1, 2012.

 Section 832--Department of Defense Assessment of Industrial Base for 
                          Potential Shortfalls

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment of the U.S. industrial base to identify 
potential gaps that might affect military readiness. Such 
assessment would be required within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act. In addition, the Comptroller General of 
the United States would be required to review the Secretary of 
Defense's assessment, including completeness of the report and 
the reasonableness of the methodology and recommendations.
    The Department of Defense relies on thousands of suppliers 
to ensure that it has the weapons, supporting equipment, and 
raw materials it needs to support current and future conflicts 
against conventional opponents. However, the committee is 
concerned that increasing globalization in the defense industry 
presents uncertainty in the ability of the United States to 
maintain a reliable and sufficient supplier base in the event 
of such conflicts. In addition, defense industry prime 
contractors are relying more on subcontractors, including 
commercial suppliers, which can limit the visibility into the 
lower tiers of the supplier base. The committee notes that 
studies by the Government Accountability Office have found that 
the Department lacks a framework and consistent approach for 
managing supplier base concerns such as counterfeit parts in 
the supply chain, and reliance on rare earth materials from the 
People's Republic of China in military equipment and systems. 
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the Department has 
not taken steps to identify supplier-base availability for 
defense needs beyond a 5-year time frame. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to address these 
deficiencies in the required report and to provide a specific 
assessment of the vulnerabilities posed to defense systems as a 
result of potential counterfeiting of sub-components 
manufactured in China.

 Section 833--Comptroller General Assessment of Government Competition 
              in the Department of Defense Industrial Base

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct an assessment of government mandated 
and supported competition in the Department of Defense 
industrial base. This section also would require the 
Comptroller General to submit a report on the findings and 
recommendations of the assessment to the chairmen and ranking 
members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2012.

   Section 834--Report on Impact of Foreign Boycotts on the Defense 
                            Industrial Base

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit to the congressional defense 
committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, not later than February 
1, 2012, a report setting forth an assessment of the impact of 
foreign boycotts on the defense industrial base. The report 
shall include a summary of foreign boycotts that posed a 
material risk to the defense industrial base from January 2008 
to the date of enactment of this Act; the apparent objectives 
of each such boycott; an assessment of the harm to the defense 
industrial base as a result of each such boycott; an assessment 
of the sufficiency of the efforts of the Department of Defense 
and Department of State to mitigate the material risks of each 
such foreign boycott on the defense industrial base; and 
recommendations to reduce the material risks of foreign 
boycotts. This section also would prohibit the Comptroller 
General from publicly disclosing the names of any person, 
organization, or entity involved in, or affected by, such 
boycotts without express written permission.

            Section 835--Rare Earth Material Inventory Plan

    This section would require the Administrator, Defense 
Logistics Agency Strategic Materials to develop a plan to 
establish an inventory of rare earth materials needed to ensure 
the long-term availability of such materials. Among other 
matters, the Administrator would be required to identify and 
describe the steps necessary to create an inventory of rare 
earth materials to support national defense requirements and 
ensure reliable sources, provide a detailed cost-benefit 
analysis of creating such an inventory, provide an analysis of 
the potential market effects associated with creating such an 
inventory, and identify and describe the steps necessary to 
develop and maintain a competitive multi-source supply chain 
for rare earth materials. This section would require the 
Administrator to submit the plan to the Secretary of Defense 
within 180 days following the date of enactment of this Act, 
and require the Secretary to determine whether to execute the 
plan. The Secretary would be required to submit that 
determination, along with the plan, to the congressional 
defense committees within 90 days of receiving the plan from 
the Administrator.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Section 841--Miscellaneous Amendments to Public Law 111-383 Relating to 
                              Acquisition

    This section would make three amendments to the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) relating to acquisition. This section would strike 
the requirement in section 804 that the acquisition process for 
rapid fielding of capabilities in response to urgent 
operational needs may only be applied for capabilities that can 
appropriately be acquired under fixed price contracts. This 
section also would strike the requirement in section 812 for 
the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance requiring the use of 
manufacturing readiness levels as a basis for measuring, 
assessing, reporting, and communicating manufacturing readiness 
and risk. This section also would amend section 1073 by 
allowing, rather than directing, the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a defense research and development rapid innovation 
program.

            Section 842--Procurement of Photovoltaic Devices

    This section would amend section 846 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) to clarify that, for the purposes of that section, 
the Department of Defense is deemed to own a photovoltaic 
device if the device is installed on Department of Defense 
property or in a facility owned or leased by or for the 
Department of Defense. This section also would clarify the 
definition of photovoltaic devices.

    Section 843--Clarification of Jurisdiction of the United States 
    District Courts To Hear Bid Protest Disputes Involving Maritime 
                               Contracts

    This section would amend section 1491(b) of title 28, 
United States Code, by establishing the U. S. Court of Federal 
Claims as the exclusive Federal court forum for bid protests.

 Section 844--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel 
                        Procurement Requirement

    This section would amend section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act (42 U.S.C. 17142) to exempt the 
Department of Defense from the requirements related to 
contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


          Conduct of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review

    The committee found the completeness of the 2008 
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review (QRMR) lacking. In 
addition, the accompanying report delivered to Congress in 
January 2009 failed to comply with the requirements of section 
118b of title 10, United States Code. Rather than using the 
QRMR as an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive assessment of 
the roles and missions of the Armed Forces with the intent to 
identify capability gaps and areas of unnecessary duplication, 
the 2008 review appeared to simply endorse the status quo. 
Furthermore, rather than conducting a complete review, the 
Secretary of Defense chose to only examine select areas of 
interest. The review only focused on the Department's planned 
investments to meet asymmetric challenges and did little to 
evaluate the conventional force structure or need for legacy 
hardware programs. The committee notes that many of the 
conclusions of the review have proven faulty, such as the 
determination that assigning the C-27J to both the Air Force 
and the Army provided the ``most value to the joint force.'' 
The committee also notes that the Department has not complied 
with the requirement in section 222 of title 10, United States 
Code, to present the future-years budget by core mission areas. 
The committee includes a provision elsewhere in this title that 
would require the inclusion of budget justification materials 
associated with the core competencies of the military services, 
and would further require the Comptroller General of the United 
States to assess the sufficiency of the Department's budget 
justification materials.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take a more 
comprehensive approach to the 2011 QRMR and to comply with 
congressional intent in conducting the review. The committee 
believes the QRMR, if conducted as intended, would provide a 
solid basis for reducing waste while also improving the joint 
warfighting capability of the Department.

           Influence of Budget on Quadrennial Defense Review

    The committee has previously expressed concern regarding 
the influence of defense budgets on the ``Quadrennial Defense 
Review'' (QDR), conducted pursuant to section 118 of title 10, 
United States Code. Section 118 requires this comprehensive 
examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, 
force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plans, and 
other elements of the defense program and policies be conducted 
every four years. Paragraph (b)(3) of section 118 requires that 
that the QDR identify the budget plan that would be ``required 
to provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the 
full range of missions called for in that national defense 
strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk.'' Likewise, 
paragraph (b)(4) of section 118 requires that the QDR's 
recommendations, ``are not constrained to comply with the 
budget submitted to Congress by the President . . .''.
    The committee notes that in the past representatives of the 
Department of Defense have indicated that the QDR is not budget 
constrained; rather, it is budget informed. While the committee 
acknowledges that ultimately resources must shape any strategy, 
the committee believes that the QDR should be based upon a 
process unconstrained by budgetary influences so that such 
influences do not determine or limit its outcome. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, or his 
designee, to brief the committee no later than September 30, 
2012 on the steps the Department will take during conduct of 
the QDR in fiscal year 2013 to ensure that the next QDR 
fulfills all statutory requirements, including those related to 
budget plans, and in particular the steps that the Department 
will take to ensure the QDR is not constrained to comply with 
the budget submitted by the President pursuant to section 1105 
of title 31, United States Code.

          Information Operations and Strategic Communications

    The committee continues to support information operations 
(IO) and strategic communications (SC) as important tools for 
countering enemy narratives, as well as engaging with the 
global community. The committee is aware that the January 2011 
Secretary of Defense memo on IO and SC has contributed 
significantly to improving the management structure and 
budgeting process for IO and SC functions within the Department 
of Defense.
    The committee believes that the realignment of IO and SC 
responsibilities to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
is critical for breaking down the traditional organizational 
stovepipes of IO and bridging those elements with the emerging 
instruments of influence under SC. The committee also 
recognizes the improvement of the budget justification material 
related to IO and SC, which greatly improves the oversight and 
management of those activities.
    The committee also encourages the Department of Defense to 
continue to pursue workforce development opportunities that 
bring together diverse skill sets and career specialties. For 
example, the Department should do more to integrate social 
science skills, cultural intelligence, and human terrain 
understanding to the IO and SC field. The committee also 
believes that as the Joint Chiefs of Staff evaluate joint SC 
and IO training and education curricula, it ensures that it 
maintains and sustains existing centers of excellence.

                  Management of Information Technology

    The committee recognizes that the acquisition and 
management of information technology (IT) systems and services 
is highly complex. The budget request contained $38.4 billion 
for IT alone, and included funds to develop items ranging from 
avionics to logistics to command and control to desktop 
computing. Managing such a complex enterprise has traditionally 
been a challenge for the Department.
    The committee is concerned that recent organizational 
changes within the Department that are a part of the Secretary 
of Defense's efficiency initiatives may in fact hamper 
management of Department of Defense IT. For example, the 
committee believes that the decision to eliminate core 
management and oversight functions within the office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 
Integration and the Business Transformation Office appears to 
have been made without adequate planning, or justification. 
Furthermore, the rationale for eliminating these functions at a 
time when IT reform and consolidation is being contemplated to 
generate cost savings is counterintuitive to the committee.
    The committee believes that the Department must maintain 
responsibility and oversight of its IT programs as well as 
sufficient numbers of experienced and trained acquisition 
professionals if they are to succeed.

          NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence

    The committee is aware that the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) has accredited a Cooperative Cyber Defense 
Center of Excellence (CCD COE) to enhance the capability, 
cooperation, and information sharing among NATO member nations 
and partners in cyber defense through education, research and 
development, lessons learned, and consultation. The Center 
represents the main source of expertise in the field of 
cooperative cyber defense within NATO and the committee 
recognizes the importance of this organization in linking U.S. 
and European initiatives to improve cyber defense capabilities. 
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to provide 
more support to the Center by increasing the number of 
personnel exchanges, and supporting additional cooperative 
workshops and other initiatives. The committee believes that 
this could help support our foreign partners build their own 
cyber operations capabilities, as well as boost U.S. capacity 
in this area.

                     Office of Cyberthreat Analysis

    The committee is aware that the Defense Intelligence Agency 
has established the Office of Cyberthreat Analysis to provide 
an all-source analysis capability focused on threats in 
cyberspace. The office provides a range of support functions to 
the entire defense community, including: all-source defense 
analysis of cyberthreats to the Nation; target development; 
exercise planning; battle damage assessment; and 
counterintelligence investigations and operations, including 
supply chain risk management.
    The committee is concerned that this office has not been 
sufficiently staffed to complete the tasks assigned. For 
instance, the growing importance of conducting supply chain 
risk assessments and vulnerability assessments on specific 
acquisition programs are likely to drive the needs for the 
limited numbers of personnel, making it difficult to carry out 
other missions. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics and the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command to assess the 
sufficiency of the workforce assigned to the Office of 
Cyberthreat Analysis compared to the missions assigned to it. 
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence shall submit a 
report on this assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 90 days 
after the enactment of this Act.

                  Protection of Sensitive Information

    The committee understands that numerous directives, 
memoranda, and other instructions guide the policy and 
processes of properly safeguarding information. The committee 
believes one very important source of guidance is the June 2006 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum titled, 
``Protection of Sensitive Agency Information'' (OMB Memorandum 
M-06-16) as the memorandum directs government agencies to 
emplace specific safeguards that conform with National 
Institute of Standards and Technology procedures for the 
protection of remote information.
    The committee is concerned that the safeguards directed to 
be emplaced have not been fully implemented or incorporated 
into existing Department of Defense procedures. Accordingly, 
the committee encourages the Department to review the guidance 
directed in the OMB memorandum and ensure that those safeguards 
are instituted within the Department of Defense.

        Report on Contractors at the Defense Intelligence Agency

    In subtitle D of title IX of this Act, the committee 
recommends several provisions on total force management within 
the Department of Defense, including section 934 which would 
amend an annual reporting requirement by the Secretary of 
Defense contained in section 115a of title 10, United States 
Code, on defense manpower requirements, to include an estimate 
for contractor requirements for support services. This 
provision would facilitate an improved awareness of the 
Department of Defense requirements being performed by 
contractors.
    The committee is particularly interested in understanding 
the use of contractors by the defense intelligence community, 
starting with the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the manpower 
mix criteria used to determine which defense intelligence 
functions should be performed by contractors and which 
functions should be performed by military members or Government 
civilians.
    The committee, therefore, directs the Director of the 
Defense Intelligence Agency to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report on how the Defense Intelligence 
Agency plans to implement subtitle D of title IX of this Act by 
December 9, 2011. The report also shall include an 
identification of the current contractor workforce, current and 
planned use of contractors by the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
and the manpower mix criteria used to determine which defense 
intelligence functions are performed by contractors and which 
functions are performed by military members or Government 
civilians. The report shall be provided in unclassified form, 
but may include a classified annex if descriptions of the use 
of contractors or criteria are classified.

           Report on Increasing Competition for Space Launch

    The committee is pleased that highly reliable space launch 
vehicles in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) 
program have resulted in over 30 successful launches since 
2002. However, the committee believes that the Department of 
Defense should provide expanded opportunities for competition 
in support of its space launch requirements, including 
competition in the EELV program. The committee further believes 
that the Department of Defense should establish clear criteria 
that new providers of space launch capabilities would be 
expected to meet in order to become qualified competitors for 
launching defense payloads.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
the congressional defense committees with a report detailing 
how it intends to incorporate new providers of space launch 
capabilities into its space launch acquisition plans while 
preserving mission assurance, identify potential cost savings, 
and identify the criteria required for new entrants wishing to 
bid on opportunities to provide launch services for defense 
payloads.

Research and Development Assessments in Quadrennial Defense Review and 
   the Responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is 
required every 4 years to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR), pursuant to section 118 of title 10, United States Code. 
The QDR is intended to provide a strategic review of force 
modernization plans and to define sufficient force 
modernization plans necessary to execute successfully the full 
range of missions called for in the national defense strategy. 
The committee believes an essential element of any force 
modernization plan is the research and development plan 
necessary to deliver future capabilities. As well, while the 
exact military capabilities required in 20 years may be 
difficult to predict, adequate research and development in the 
near-term creates options for decision makers in the long-term. 
The committee believes the QDR was intended to identify such 
prudent hedges against future, ill-defined threats. Therefore, 
the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to identify 
the assumptions used in future QDRs related to research and 
development and the core capabilities relating to research, 
development, test, and evaluation required to support the 
national defense.
    The committee also notes that the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff has a key role in advising the Secretary on 
requirements, programs, and budgets, and the committee believes 
this role should include advice on research and development. 
Specifically, paragraph (a)(4) of section 153 of title 10, 
United States Code, requires the Chairman to advise the 
Secretary on the priorities of the requirements identified by 
the combatant commanders. The committee is aware that the 
combatant commanders often include science and technology 
priorities in their respective integrated priority lists. As a 
result, the committee believes it is important for the Chairman 
to include in his advice to the Secretary the research and 
development needs of the combatant commanders and to maintain 
situational awareness of technological innovations that could 
pose challenges to U.S. national security.

                         Total Force Management

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's 
recent focus on efficiencies without a thorough business case 
analysis and risk assessment potentially undermines the 
Department's ability to appropriately plan and budget for its 
total manpower requirements. The committee believes that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) should aggressively undertake a 
more holistic approach to its requirements in order to achieve 
the appropriate balance in its total workforce, rather than 
managing simply to an arbitrary civilian authorization level.
    Total force management would improve personnel requirements 
determination and planning to facilitate decisions on which 
sector is most appropriate to perform that requirement with 
consideration of the distinct value of each component of the 
plan, whether military (Active and Reserve Components), 
civilian, or contractor personnel. For example, the military 
provides an expeditionary capability with specialized training 
in combat, combat support, and combat service support 
capabilities; civilian personnel provide needed oversight and 
direction, continuity of operations, and specialized enduring 
skills that do not require expeditionary, combat, or combat-
related competencies; and contractor personnel provide 
specialized skills and surge capabilities that do not require 
the command and control or transparency to the public required 
by military and civilian personnel.
    The committee notes that several tools are available to 
facilitate total force management decisions. These include the 
strategic civilian human capital plan (10 U.S.C. 115b), service 
contracting inventory (10 U.S.C. 2330a), inclusion of 
contractor services support work in the annual budget displays 
(10 U.S.C. 235), and the list of commercial activities required 
by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (Public Law 105-
270). In addition, section 129, title 10, United State Code, 
requires that the Department of Defense civilian workforce be 
managed on the basis of workload rather than any arbitrary 
constraints or limitations. Furthermore, the committee notes 
that sections 2461 and 2463 of title 10, United States Code, 
outline the procedures for the conversion of functions to 
performance by either DOD civilian personnel or contractor 
personnel; these procedures are tools that allow the Department 
to ``right size'' its workforce where appropriate. The 
committee notes that these tools should be used only in 
response to changes in the Department's mission or if 
insufficient strategic human capital planning was done prior to 
workforce decisions being made initially.
    Therefore, elsewhere in this title the committee includes a 
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a total force management plan that would provide the 
means to establish the appropriate mix of manpower, military, 
civilian, and contractor personnel, to perform the mission of 
the Department of Defense. Risk mitigation should take 
precedence over cost when necessary to maintain appropriate 
manpower to support the Department's operations and readiness 
to perform the core missions of the Armed Forces.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


     Section 901--Revision of Defense Business System Requirements

    This section would update the structure and process of the 
defense business systems investment review boards, including 
clarifying responsibilities based on recent reorganization 
within the Department of Defense. This section would also 
consolidate reporting by the Department of Defense Deputy chief 
management officers and the reports required by the Chief 
Management Officer of the military departments required by 
section 908 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).

    Section 902--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 
                Department of the Navy and Marine Corps

    This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy 
as the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change 
the title of its secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and 
Marine Corps. This section would formally recognize the 
responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over 
both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as 
an equal partner with the Navy.

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities


   Section 911--Notification Requirement for Harmful Interference to 
            Department of Defense Global Positioning System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a notification to Congress upon such a determination 
that a space-based or terrestrial-based commercial 
communications service will cause or is causing widespread 
harmful interference with Global Positioning System (GPS) 
receivers of the Department of Defense (DOD). The notification 
would include a summary of the reasons for such harmful 
interference, the entity causing the interference, and the 
magnitude and duration of the interference.
    The committee is aware that the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) issued a conditional order to a commercial 
communications company on January 26, 2011, authorizing it to 
provide broadband voice and data communications services that 
potentially interfere with GPS. The committee recognizes that 
the Armed Forces are highly dependent on GPS capabilities and 
services. The committee believes that any space-based or 
terrestrial-based commercial communications service that has 
the potential to interfere with GPS should not receive final 
authorization to provide service within the United States by 
the FCC unless and until the potential interference with GPS is 
resolved.
    Such commercial services are planned to be transmitted from 
40,000 land-based towers across the United States. The 
committee understands, based on information received from the 
Air Force, that the signal strength of such service is 
estimated to be one billion times more powerful than the GPS 
signal. Though the commercial service would broadcast on a 
frequency adjacent to GPS, it may still overwhelm GPS 
receivers, potentially causing a denial of service for millions 
of users in the United States relying on GPS navigation and 
timing services. Such users included the military, emergency 
responders, maritime and aeronautical emergency communication 
systems, banking transactions, air traffic and ground 
transportation systems, and myriad commercial applications.
    The committee understands that the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense sent a letter to the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission on January 12, 2011, highlighting the 
``strong potential for interference to . . . critical national 
security systems,'' and ``strongly recommend[ing] deferral of 
final action on [the FCC order and authorization] until the 
proper interference analysis and mitigation studies can be 
conducted.''
    The committee is aware of several other letters of concern 
regarding potential GPS interference, including: a December 28, 
2010, multi-agency memorandum to the Chairman of the 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) signed by 
officials from the military departments of the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
the Department of the Interior, and Department of Homeland 
Security; a January 12, 2011, letter to the Chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission from the Assistant Secretary 
of Commerce for Communications and Information; and a March 25, 
2011, letter co-signed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and 
the Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
    The committee understands that the authorization of 
commercial communications service is conditional ``upon the 
completion of the process for addressing interference concerns 
relating to GPS'' undertaken by a technical working group whose 
analysis of potential interference with GPS devices and 
recommendations to mitigate such interference is due to be 
submitted to the FCC no later than June 15, 2011.
    The committee is concerned about the impact on U.S. 
national security resulting from potential harmful interference 
with GPS. The committee recognizes the extent to which the 
military is reliant on GPS and notes the military's current 
inventory of nearly one million GPS receivers. Thousands of GPS 
receivers are integrated into weapons systems, aircraft, ships, 
and vehicles. GPS is crucial in such areas as blue force 
tracking, precision munitions employment, combat search and 
rescue, close air support, logistics, and communications.
    The committee understands that the FCC did not conduct a 
study on potential interference prior to the January 26, 2011, 
order and authorization. The committee is disappointed that the 
FCC proceeded with the order and authorization prior to any 
study and resolution of the GPS interference issue. 
Furthermore, the committee understands that the Department of 
Defense has not determined whether it can mitigate the 
interference and questions whether sufficient analysis and 
mitigating measures can be identified and implemented by June 
15, 2011. The committee believes the burden of proof for non-
interference should be placed on the commercial communications 
company and believes the FCC should indefinitely postpone final 
decision until the harmful interference issue has been 
resolved, with the full coordination and approval of the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense of the 
authority in section 2281 of title 10, United States Code, 
which states that the Secretary ``may not agree to any 
restriction on the Global Positioning System . . . that would 
adversely affect the military potential of the Global 
Positioning System.'' The committee intends to work with the 
Secretary of Defense to mitigate the effects of any harmful 
interference with GPS on the military.

                Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Matters


Section 921--Report on Implementation of Recommendations by Comptroller 
              General on Intelligence Information Sharing

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on actions taken to 
implement the recommendation of the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report, ``Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance: Establishing Guidance, Timelines, and 
Accountability for Integrating Intelligence Data Would Improve 
Information Sharing'' (GAO-10-265NI). GAO recommends that the 
Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the military services, 
develop intelligence information sharing guidance, such as a 
concept of operations, and to provide such direction and 
prioritization to improve intelligence community information 
sharing. In addition, this section directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to review the Under Secretary's 
report to determine whether it is consistent with and adequate 
to address its recommendation.
    The committee is concerned about the extent to which 
Department of Defense intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance efforts are managed in accordance with 
overarching direction and priorities for sharing intelligence 
information across the defense intelligence community. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to implement the 
recommendation. The committee also requests that GAO provide it 
with an update regarding its conclusions from this review as 
soon as practicable.

                 Section 922--Insider Threat Detection

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a program for enhanced information sharing protection 
and insider threat mitigation for the information systems of 
the Department of Defense in order to detect unauthorized 
access to, use of, or transmission of, classified or controlled 
unclassified information.
    The committee is concerned with the acute damage to 
national security of recent unauthorized releases of classified 
information from the Department of Defense and other Government 
information systems. The committee notes that the impact of 
these releases will continue for many years, to the detriment 
of existing operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
as well as the reputation and credibility of the United States 
in international affairs now and in the future.
    The committee recognizes that the Department is responding 
seriously to this event and is implementing safeguards to 
prevent such a breach again. While the Department should 
continue to pursue technical security measures, the committee 
is concerned that the human dimension is not receiving 
sufficient attention. The committee therefore encourages the 
Department to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the means by 
which to detect, respond and mitigate the threat posed by 
trusted persons inside the organization who would purposely 
compromise the security of the network (otherwise known as the 
``insider threat'').
    Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 
technological and procedural responses may be having a negative 
impact on the productivity and effectiveness of forces 
supporting ongoing operations in areas of hostility. The 
committee cautions the Department to pay special consideration 
in how technological or procedural fixes are implemented in 
operational areas of hostility to ensure that these concerns do 
not become a significant problem.

                   Subtitle D--Total Force Management


         Section 931--General Policy for Total Force Management

    This section would amend section 129a of title 10, United 
States Code to require the Secretary of Defense to develop and 
implement a total force management plan that would determine 
the appropriate manpower mix of military (Active and Reserve 
Components), civilian and contractor personnel necessary to 
accomplish the mission of the Department of Defense (DOD). 
Overall responsibility for establishing the policies and 
procedures to implement such a plan would be given to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, with 
responsibility for requirements determination, planning and 
programming being given to the manpower and force structure 
authorities for each DOD component.
    The committee is aware that DOD Instruction 1100.2 requires 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to obtain a written statement from each requiring 
official regarding decisions to contract for support. This 
section would codify that requirement and also would require 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to ensure that the policies and procedures governing 
the acquisition process are consistent with those developed to 
implement the total force management plan. Furthermore, to 
ensure that budget decisions are developed in line with these 
policies, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) would be 
required to justify in the annual budget submission any budget 
decision that may inhibit implementation of the total force 
management plan.
    The committee notes that manpower and force structure 
personnel should have a greater role in requirements 
determination, planning, programming, and budgeting. This is 
intended to ensure that all aspects of the Department of 
Defense workforce (military, civilian and contractor personnel) 
are utilized in a balanced and rational fashion.

  Section 932--Revisions to Department of Defense Civilian Personnel 
                         Management Constraints

    This section would amend section 129 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require that the civilian personnel of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) are managed on the basis of 
workload and in support of the total force management plan 
developed in accordance with section 129a, as would be amended 
by this Act. This change would reinforce the committee's 
position that manpower requirements should be based on mission 
requirements and not arbitrary cost savings that ignore the 
workload needs of the DOD components.

 Section 933--Additional Amendments Relating to Total Force Management

    This section would amend section 113 of title 10, United 
States Code, to include an accounting for contractors in the 
Secretary of Defense annual report to Congress on expenditures, 
work, and accomplishments of the Department of Defense. The 
inclusion of contractors in this report would facilitate 
improved awareness of the role of contractors in accomplishing 
the mission of the Department. In addition, this section would 
amend section 1597 of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that the guidelines put in place related to civilian personnel 
reductions comply with the total force management plan required 
by section 129a, title 10, United States Code, as would be 
amended by this act.
    This section also would amend section 863 of the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383), to include considerations relating to 
policy for total force management required by section 129a of 
title 10, United States Code, in the implementation plan 
required for establishment of requirements processes for the 
acquisition of services. The committee believes that this is 
necessary in order to align the processes for the acquisition 
of services with the manpower requirements determination 
process required by section 129a.

 Section 934--Amendments to Annual Defense Manpower Requirements Report

    This section would amend section 115a of title 10, United 
States Code, to revise the annual defense manpower requirements 
report to include a projection of the annual Department of 
Defense (DOD) civilian personnel requirements for the next 
fiscal year, and the strength levels of the previous year. This 
change reflects the recognition that DOD civilian personnel 
should be managed by workload requirements, which may fluctuate 
during a given year and should be accommodated as necessary. In 
addition, this section would require the inclusion of an 
estimate for contractor requirements for support services, as 
outlined in each military department's service contractor 
inventory as required by section 2330a of title 10, United 
States Code. The inclusion of contractors in this report would 
facilitate an improved awareness of the Department of Defense 
requirements being performance by contractors.

           Section 935--Revisions to Strategic Workforce Plan

    This section would amend section 115b of title 10, United 
States Code to achieve the following outcomes in Department of 
Defense (DOD) civilian workforce planning requirements:
          (1) Reduce costs associated with planning and allow 
        the Department to improve its implementation efforts by 
        moving from an annual to a biennial report;
          (2) Align the workforce planning assessment period to 
        correspond with existing DOD budget and manpower 
        planning cycles upon which workforce requirements, 
        authorizations, and forecasts are based; and
          (3) Require that the assessment of the appropriate 
        mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel is 
        aligned with the total force management plan developed 
        in accordance with section 129a, title 10, United 
        States Code, as would be amended by this Act.
    While the committee recommends these changes in order to 
align the Department's strategic civilian workforce plans with 
existing budget and manpower planning structures and provide 
time to implement planned strategies, it remains concerned that 
the Department has not fully complied with the requirements 
outlined in section 115b of title 10, United States Code. 
According to a September 2010 report by the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO-10-814R), this could result in the 
Department relying on ``incomplete information concerning the 
size, composition and needs of the civilian workforce. In 
particular, the Department may not be able to determine whether 
its investment in strategies to improve the civilian workforce 
is effective and efficient.'' Therefore, the committee urges 
the Department to develop performance measures to assess its 
progress and guide its civilian workforce planning.

   Section 936--Technical Amendments to Requirement for Inventory of 
                         Contracts for Services

    This section would amend section 2330a(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to provide additional clarity regarding the 
types of contracted services to be inventoried and the manner 
in which contractor full-time equivalents are captured. In 
addition, this section would more clearly delineate the 
statutory responsibilities and roles in developing guidance and 
implementing particular aspects of the statute. This section 
also would direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
to develop and promulgate guidance specific to the review 
requirements outlined in paragraph (e) of 2330a of title 10, 
United States Code. This clarification is intended to ensure 
that the Department of Defense's total force manpower 
management equities are fully represented.

  Section 937--Modification of Temporary Suspension of Public-Private 
   Competitions for Conversion of Department of Defense Functions to 
                         Contractor Performance

    This section would lift the temporary suspension of 
Department of Defense public-private competitions that was 
included in section 325 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Section 325 
temporarily suspended the authority to initiate public-private 
competitions until the Secretary of Defense provided a report 
to Congress on the conduct of such competitions and certified 
compliance with certain statutory requirements. This section 
would eliminate the compliance certification and lift the 
suspension 30 days after receipt by Congress of the Secretary 
of Defense report, and after an assessment of the report is 
conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States.
    The committee notes that the moratorium already could have 
been lifted if the Department had complied with the 
requirements of Section 325 under the time frame outlined in 
that section. However, the committee is taking this action to 
ensure that the report is delivered promptly so that the 
Department can reinstate the public-private competition process 
once the reporting requirements are complied with.

  Section 938--Preliminary Planning for Department of Defense Public-
                          Private Competitions

    This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United 
States Code, to place the responsibility to issue and maintain 
guidance and procedures for preliminary planning for public-
private competitions with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness. Currently all elements of public-
private competitions are the responsibility of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics. However, the committee believes that preliminary 
planning for public-private competitions should include an 
increased and more active role for the manpower and personnel 
communities, which have greater expertise in determining 
manpower requirements, whether military, civilian, or 
contractor personnel. While the committee believes that the 
manpower and personnel communities should remain actively 
engaged throughout the entirety of the process, the conduct of 
the acquisition component of the competition remains the 
responsibility of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, which has the requisite 
acquisition expertise. However, the committee recommends the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics realign responsibility for public-private 
competitions from the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations 
and Environment to the Director for Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy.

     Section 939--Conversion of Certain Functions from Contractor 
 Performance to Performance by Department of Defense Civilian Employees

    This section would amend section 2463 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the conversion of any inherently 
governmental function to performance by Department of Defense 
(DOD) civilian employees. The committee notes that this 
requirement was not specifically included in section 2463 when 
it was enacted originally because it was presumed that such 
functions were not being performed by contractors. However, the 
committee is aware that was a false presumption. For example, 
according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, 
``Defense Acquisitions: Further Action Needed to Better 
Implement Requirements for Conducting Inventory of Service 
Contract Activities, January 2011'', within the Department of 
the Army, more than 2,000 contractor full-time equivalents are 
performing work that is inherently governmental, and an 
additional 45,934 Army contractors are performing activities 
deemed closely associated with inherently governmental 
functions. The committee finds this troubling and urges the 
military services, particularly the Army, to convert such 
functions immediately to performance by DOD civilian employees.
    In addition, this section would require a cost analysis and 
a savings differential before converting certain commercial 
functions to performance by DOD civilian employees. This 
requirement would be applied for the conversion of functions 
that are not inherently governmental. This section also would 
require procedures to be developed to notify a contractor of 
the intent to insource a contract on which the contractor is 
currently performing; a copy of the notification would be 
provided to the congressional defense committees. The intent of 
the notification is to provide fair notice to affected 
contractors but not to delay or stop an insourcing initiative.

   Section 940--Assessment of Appropriate Department of Defense and 
    Contractor Personnel for the Defense Medical Readiness Training 
                               Institute

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment of the appropriate mix of military, 
civilian, and contractor personnel to carry out mission and 
functions of the Defense Medical Readiness Training Institute. 
This assessment would be carried out in accordance with 
sections 129 and 129a of title 10, United States Code, as would 
be amended by this Act.

     Subtitle E--Quadrennial Roles and Missions and Related Matters


 Section 951--Transfer of Provisions Relating to Quadrennial Roles and 
                            Missions Review

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
transfer the requirement for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to conduct an assessment of roles and missions of the 
Armed Forces from section 118b to section 153, and to enhance 
the Chairman's role in advising the Secretary of Defense on the 
assignment of functions of the Armed Forces in order to obtain 
maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the Armed Forces.

    Section 952--Revisions to Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review

    This section would amend section 118b of title 10, United 
States Code, to enhance the requirements of the Quadrennial 
Roles and Missions Review by requiring the review to include an 
assessment of the functions and capabilities of the Department 
of Defense and its major components to achieve the objectives 
of the national defense strategy and the national military 
strategy.

   Section 953--Amendment to Presentation of Future-Years Budget and 
      Comptroller General Report on Budget Justification Material

    This section would amend section 944 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to include the functions of each of the armed forces as 
identified under the most recent Quadrennial Roles and Missions 
Review pursuant to section 118b of title 10, United States 
Code. This section also would require the Comptroller General 
of the United States to review the sufficiency of Department of 
Defense regulations, policies, and guidance governing the 
construction of budget exhibits and to provide recommendations 
to improve the consistency, clarity, accuracy, and completeness 
of the Department of Defense's budget justification material.

   Section 954--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Assessment of 
                           Contingency Plans

    This section would amend paragraph (b)(1) of section 153 of 
title 10, United States Code, to require the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to Congress, as part of the 
Chairman's assessment of risks under the National Military 
Strategy submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of such 
section, an assessment of the critical deficiencies and 
strengths in force capabilities (including manpower, logistics, 
intelligence, and mobility support) identified during the 
preparation and review of contingency plans of each geographic 
combatant commander, and assess the effect of such deficiencies 
and strengths on meeting national security objectives, policy, 
and strategic plans. The committee notes that the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff is already required to advise the 
Secretary of Defense on such information, in accordance with 
Department of Defense Directive 5100.01. This section would 
further amend paragraph (b)(2) of section 153 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to Congress a plan for mitigating a critical deficiency 
in force capability for a contingency plan, as identified by 
the Chairman in paragraph (b)(1) of such section, as amended.

                Section 955--Quadrennial Defense Review

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
quadrennial defense review is a critical strategic document and 
should be based upon a process unconstrained by budgetary 
influences so that such influences do not determine or limit 
its outcome. This section would also amend paragraph (4) of 
section 118(b) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 
each quadrennial defense review shall be conducted so as to 
make recommendations that are not constrained to comply with 
and are fully independent of the budget submitted to Congress 
by the President, pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United 
States Code, in order to allow Congress to determine the level 
of acceptable risk to execute the missions associated with the 
national defense strategy within appropriated funds.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


     Section 961--Deadline Revision for Report on Foreign Language 
                              Proficiency

    This section would amend section 958 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) by striking ``annually thereafter'' in subsection (a) and 
inserting ``by June 30 each year thereafter;'' and by striking 
``December 31, 2013'' in subsection (d) and inserting ``June 
30, 2013''.

             Section 962--Military Activities in Cyberspace

    This section would affirm that the Secretary of Defense has 
the authority to conduct military activities in cyberspace. The 
committee recognizes that because of the evolving nature of 
cyber warfare, there is a lack of historical precedent for what 
constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace.
    In particular, this section would clarify that the 
Secretary of Defense has the authority to conduct clandestine 
cyberspace activities in support of military operations 
pursuant to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force 
(Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) outside of the United 
States or to defend against a cyber attack on an asset of the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee notes that al Qaeda, the Taliban, and 
associated forces are increasingly using the internet to 
exercise command and control as well as to spread technical 
information enabling attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in 
areas of ongoing hostilities.
    While these terrorist actions often lead to increased 
danger for U.S. and coalition forces in areas of ongoing 
hostilities, terrorists often rely on the global reach of the 
internet to communicate and plan from distributed sanctuaries 
throughout the world. As a result, military activities may not 
be confined to a physical battlefield, and the use of military 
cyber activities has become a critical part of the effort to 
protect U.S. and coalition forces and combat terrorism 
globally.
    In certain instances, the most effective way to neutralize 
threats and protect U.S. and coalition forces is to undertake 
military cyber activities in a clandestine manner. While this 
section is not meant to identify all or in any way limit other 
possible military activities in cyberspace, the Secretary of 
Defense's authority includes the authority to conduct 
clandestine military activities in cyberspace in support of 
military operations pursuant to an armed conflict for which 
Congress has authorized the use of all necessary and 
appropriate force or to defend against a cyber attack on a 
Department of Defense asset.
    Because of the sensitivities associated with such military 
activities and the need for more rigorous oversight, this 
section would require quarterly briefings to the congressional 
defense committees on covered military activities in 
cyberspace.

    Section 963--Activities to Improve Multilateral, Bilateral, and 
              Regional Cooperation regarding Cybersecurity

    This section would establish a cybersecurity fellowship 
program within the Department of Defense that would allow for 
the temporary assignment of a member of the military forces of 
a foreign country to a Department of Defense organization for 
the purpose of assisting the member to obtain education and 
training to improve the member's ability to understand and 
respond to information security threats, vulnerabilities of 
information security systems, and the consequences of 
information security incidents.

    Section 964--Report on U.S. Special Operations Command Structure

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2012, a report on U.S. Special Operations Command structure and 
make recommendations to better support development and 
deployment of joint forces.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Counter-Drug Activities

    The budget request contained $1.15 billion for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $486.5 
million, for Overseas Contingency Operations, which is 
contained within the operating budgets of the military 
services. The budget is organized in fiscal year 2012 to 
address four broad national priorities: (1) international 
support; (2) domestic support; (3) intelligence and technology 
support; and (4) demand reduction.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 
2012 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows 
(in millions of U.S. dollars):

FY12 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request...............  $1,156.3
International Support.........................................    $553.8
Domestic Support..............................................    $238.8
Intelligence and Technology Support...........................    $212.1
Demand Reduction..............................................    $151.6
FY12 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request Recommendation  $1,156.3

                        Interagency Coordination


   Whole-of-Government Approaches and the National Security Strategy

    In its July 2010 report, the Quadrennial Defense Review 
Independent Panel emphasized a call for interagency reform, 
writing that ``the Panel notes with extreme concern that our 
federal government structures--both executive and legislative, 
and in particular those related to security--were fashioned in 
the 1940s and, at best, they work imperfectly today . . . a new 
approach is needed.'' The Panel continued, ``the Panel finds 
that the Executive branch lacks an effective `whole of 
government' capacity that integrates the planning and execution 
capabilities of the many federal departments and agencies that 
have national security responsibilities.'' The committee 
agrees, and believes that the current agency-centric 
structures, processes, and cultures within the national 
security system prevent full and effective whole-of-government 
integration.
    The President's 2010 ``National Security Strategy'' stated 
that there is a need to ``update, balance, and integrate all 
tools of American power and work with our allies and partners 
to do the same,'' and laid out various aspects of a broad 
vision to strengthen whole-of-government integration. The 
committee believes that success in implementing this vision can 
best be assured by the preparation and oversight of an 
implementation plan containing concrete actions to be taken 
toward achieving the broad whole-of-government vision 
articulated in the ``National Security Strategy.'' Therefore, 
the committee recommends that the President develop and submit 
to Congress an implementation plan for the whole-of-government 
vision prescribed in the ``National Security Strategy.''

                             Other Matters


            Analysis of Nuclear Force Structure Alternatives

    The committee is aware that the President is considering 
further nuclear force reductions and changes in nuclear 
targeting guidance. The committee believes any decisions about 
the size and composition of the Nation's nuclear forces must be 
informed by robust quantitative analysis, to include war gaming 
and simulations, force-on-force analysis, scenario-based 
exchange calculations, and examination of alternative 
employment policies.
    While this type of analysis was done extensively during the 
cold war, recent reports, including a September 2008 Defense 
Science Board report on ``Nuclear Deterrence Skills'' and the 
December 2008 ``Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force 
on Department of Defense Nuclear Weapons Management,'' reveal 
that the skills needed to conduct this type of nuclear analysis 
are in danger of atrophying. Furthermore, the assumptions and 
scope of cold war-era nuclear analyses are vastly different 
than what is needed today. Today's geopolitical environment 
presents a diverse range of new threats and opportunities that 
the committee believes must be examined using the same robust 
quantitative analysis that was done in previous decades as well 
as new analytical methods appropriate to address emerging 
challenges.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a study on current, proposed, and several 
alternative nuclear force structures of the United States and 
brief the congressional defense committees on the methodology, 
findings, and recommendations of the study by March 1, 2012. In 
conducting the study, the Secretary of Defense should 
coordinate, as appropriate, with the Secretary of State, the 
Director of National Intelligence, and the Administrator, 
National Nuclear Security Administration.
    The study should include an analysis of the effects of 
various U.S. nuclear force structures and policies on the 
forces and policies of other nations, as well as the linkages 
to and effects on nuclear terrorism, nonproliferation, missile 
defense, and strategic conventional capabilities. The study 
should examine various scenarios, a broad spectrum of 
assumptions, and include rigorous quantitative analysis of the 
potential vulnerability, survivability, and effectiveness of 
various U.S. nuclear force structures under these scenarios. 
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to use common 
metrics to examine and compare the implications of different 
force structures, and encourages the use of red-teams or 
competitive analysis to ensure a comprehensive assessment of 
the options. The committee believes this study will provide the 
President and Congress with important information needed to 
inform future decisions regarding U.S. nuclear force structure 
and policies.

                 Annual Report on Missile Proliferation

    The committee notes that section 1308(f)(1)(A) of the 
Security Assistance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-228) requires 
the President to deliver an annual report to several 
congressional committees, including the House Committee on 
Armed Services, on the proliferation of missiles and essential 
components of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological 
weapons. Section 1308(e) states that, ``The Secretary shall 
make every effort to submit all of the information required by 
this section in unclassified form. Whenever the Secretary 
submits any such information in classified form, the Secretary 
shall submit such classified information in an addendum and 
shall also submit concurrently a detailed summary, in 
unclassified form, of that classified information.''
    After multiple requests by the committee for the 
unclassified summary required by section 1308(e), 
representatives of the Department of State informed the 
committee that it had been deemed less important and that only 
the classified report had been generated. Although the 
Department ultimately submitted a two-sentence unclassified 
summary, the committee believes that such a submission is 
inconsistent with intent of the law. The committee notes that 
statutory requirements specifying that detailed unclassified 
summaries be submitted are legally binding, and should be 
followed. While respecting the need for classification of 
certain information, the committee notes the utility of the 
unclassified report for the purpose of open discussion as the 
committee monitors missile proliferation and the evolving 
missile threat.

              Audit Readiness of the Department of Defense

    The committee is concerned that the blended civilian and 
contractor workforce within the Department of Defense that is 
responsible for financial improvement and audit readiness lacks 
the appropriate skill sets required to achieve a clean audit 
opinion by 2017, as required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). 
Specifically, the committee is concerned that the Department's 
audit readiness workforce may be lacking in qualified financial 
managers, including Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), who 
have prior experience performing complex financial statement 
audits for large commercial entities and/or large governmental 
agencies. The committee believes that such prior experience is 
an essential attribute to properly guide the Department in 
building its capacity to produce a clean audit by 2017. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief Management Officer 
of the Department of Defense to conduct an analysis of its 
civilian and contractor workforce supporting audit readiness, 
and provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no later 
than October 15, 2011. The analysis should include the 
following information:
          (1) The number and relevant qualifications of Senior 
        Executive Service (SES) personnel currently leading 
        audit readiness efforts for the military services, 
        defense agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of 
        Defense;
          (2) The current number of full-time equivalents, 
        including contractors directly supporting audit 
        readiness efforts, for the military services, defense 
        agencies, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
        and
          (3) The current number of civilian and contractor 
        personnel with prior experience performing large, 
        complex financial statement audits, including the 
        number of CPAs, directly supporting audit readiness 
        efforts for the military services, defense agencies and 
        the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Comptroller General Review of Security Requirements for Special Nuclear 
                                Material

    The committee continues to remain concerned about the 
security requirements associated with facilities that operate 
with special nuclear materials (SNM). The committee would like 
to gain a clearer understanding of the similarities and 
differences in security and inspection procedures at Department 
of Energy and Department of Defense (DOD) facilities that 
operate with special nuclear materials, as well as commercial 
facilities that operate with SNM in direct support of DOD or 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) mission 
requirements.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a review of the security 
requirements for SNM and submit a preliminary report to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2012, with a 
final report and classified annex, as necessary, to be 
submitted by July 2, 2012. The review should consist of the 
security requirements and inspection procedures for DOD and 
NNSA facilities that operate with significant quantities of 
special nuclear materials. These SNM include, but are not 
limited to, plutonium-239, uranium-233, and uranium-235 in the 
form of nuclear weapons components, metals, oxides, and reactor 
fuels.
    The review should also examine commercial facilities that 
operate with significant quantities of SNM in direct support of 
DOD or NNSA mission requirements. This review is not intended 
to cover operationally deployed or stored nuclear weapons.

                   Countering Adversarial Narratives

    The committee applauds the U.S. Government, and in 
particular the Department of Defense, for its efforts to 
develop and implement an effective communications strategy to 
counter violent extremist messaging and other adversarial 
narratives. However, the committee remains concerned that the 
United States and its allies are losing the ever present 
information campaign to its adversaries. Through the use of 
emerging new media capabilities, our enemies make it appear 
that they are acting more swiftly and with a more unified 
message than the U.S. Government. Furthermore, many of these 
media channels originate in the United States or neutral 
countries and pose an even greater challenge because they 
threaten our ability to successfully communicate our objectives 
while negating our ability to counter their information flow.
    The committee is concerned that the Armed Forces are 
increasingly seen as the strategic communications provider for 
the United States within their areas of responsibilities. The 
committee is concerned, though, that the Department is 
increasingly challenged by a shortage of in-house practical 
expertise and, in general, military and civilian senior 
leadership has limited or no practical experience in strategic 
communication. The committee is also concerned that the 
Department lacks the technical capabilities to respond in a 
systemic, rapid, sustained and measurable way to the constant 
barrage of narratives being used to undermine our military and 
security efforts.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct an assessment of the Department of Defense's efforts 
to counter adversarial narratives and provide a briefing on the 
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 150 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act. This assessment should address 
the following:
          (1) Does the Department of Defense have the 
        authorities, organizational structure, tools, 
        techniques, procedures, and resources to rapidly 
        analyze and respond to adversarial narratives in the 
        information environment;
          (2) Does the Department of Defense have adequate 
        manpower, talent pool and training base to provide the 
        leadership and staffing required to monitor and respond 
        to adversarial narratives in the information 
        environment; and
          (3) What additional legal authorities or resources 
        are necessary to remedy any challenges or shortages 
        that limit the Department's ability to succeed.

                    Countering Network-Based Threats

    The committee continues to encourage the Secretary of 
Defense to pursue efforts to develop innovative, non-materiel, 
and multi-disciplinary methodologies and strategies for 
disrupting irregular and asymmetric threats. During his March 
2011 Senate confirmation hearing, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence testified that ``a comprehensive 
understanding of the socio-cultural environment is absolutely 
critical to developing and implementing effective strategies to 
separate the insurgency from any viable base of support in the 
general population,'' and that ``a detailed understanding of 
tribal dynamics is a critical intelligence task, and will 
likely remain so for the foreseeable future.'' The committee 
believes an effective military strategy for operations, such as 
those in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, must 
appropriately balance kinetic operations with counterinsurgency 
operations, emphasizing population protection, tribal dynamics, 
cultural insight, and the rule of law. However the committee 
remains concerned that the intelligence community is 
overwhelmingly focused on kinetic operations to the detriment 
of the socio-cultural environment critical to counterinsurgency 
operations.
    The committee notes that U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, dated 
December 2006, defines the key to all counterinsurgency tasks 
is developing an effective host-nation security force. Chapter 
6 of the manual states: ``Few military units can match a good 
police unit in developing an accurate human intelligence 
picture of their area of operation. Because of their frequent 
contact with populace, police often are the best force for 
countering small insurgent bands supported by the local 
populace.''
    The committee remains concerned that the Secretary of 
Defense has not taken full advantage of a novel approach that 
takes into account an understanding of the tribal landscape and 
invests in developing host-nation security forces, particularly 
local police organizations that maintain close ties with and 
function to protect the local population. The committee praised 
this approach, the Legacy program, in the committee report (H. 
Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011. In the report, the committee noted 
special interest in the ``Attack the Network'' approach used in 
the Republic of Iraq and Afghanistan under the Legacy program.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct an assessment of the following:
          (1) The applicability of the Legacy program in other 
        operations and regions where network-based threats are 
        present or where conditions are conducive to supporting 
        these threats; and
          (2) Options for an appropriate management structure 
        within the Department to institutionalize and sustain 
        the capabilities that Legacy and other similar programs 
        provide.
    The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to 
brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services, by July 31, 2011, on the findings 
of the aforementioned activities and on the plan in H. Rept. 
111-491 for supporting and sustaining innovative approaches, 
including such approaches that incorporate and blend legal, law 
enforcement, intelligence, and military tactics, techniques, 
and procedures.

           Counterproliferation Improvements and Efficiencies

    The committee notes with concern several 
counterproliferation and combating weapons of mass destruction 
program inefficiencies identified in the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Report ``Weapons of Mass 
Destruction: Actions Needed to Track Budget Execution for 
Counterproliferation Programs and Better Align Resources with 
Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategy,'' (GAO-10-
755R). The committee directed GAO to examine this issue in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
    In GAO-10-755R, GAO notes that ``The Department of Defense 
(DOD) cannot precisely identify what proportion of its 
resources are specifically devoted to counterproliferation.'' 
GAO also states that ``Visibility over how the Department's 
resources support its counterproliferation strategies is 
limited, in part because those resources are not 
comprehensively aligned with gaps in counterproliferation 
capabilities identified by the Joint Staff based on inputs from 
the combatant commands and other DOD sources.'' The committee 
is concerned about these and other findings within GAO-10-755R, 
also since the Department of Defense has not yet provided its 
comments to GAO on the related classified annex may delay 
implementation of its report recommendations. Additionally, as 
noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166), the committee 
remains concerned about the potential for overlap and 
redundancy with the coordinating functions of the 
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) and the 
Office of the Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of 
Defense to continue to work with GAO to identify and implement 
counterproliferation improvements and efficiencies, and to more 
effectively align resources with the Combating Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Strategy. The committee also encourages the 
Department of Defense to review the efficacy and relevancy of 
the CPRC and to determine if the CPRC is still required to 
coordinate activities and programs as directed by Section 1605 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
(Public Law 103-160) and Section 1502 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337).

            Cyber Activity of the People's Republic of China

    The committee continues to be concerned with the national 
security implications of the increasing levels of malicious 
cyber activity emanating from the People's Republic of China. 
The U.S.-China Economic Security and Review Commission notes in 
its 2010 ``Report to Congress'' that malicious cyber activity 
such as ``Operation Aurora'', which targeted proprietary 
information at Google and other U.S. companies, and instances 
of Chinese internet service providers and censors disrupting 
U.S. and other foreign internet traffic, such as China 
Telecom's routing of U.S. internet traffic, including .gov and 
.mil data, through Chinese servers, are efforts likely being 
conducted with the tacit knowledge of the Chinese Government, 
if not with full government support. The report also notes that 
in May 2010, the Chinese Government instituted new regulations 
requiring foreign firms to disclose sensitive encryption and 
software design information.
    Further, the Department of Defense noted in its report 
``Military and Security Developments Involving the People's 
Republic of China 2010'' submitted in accordance with section 
1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65) that developing capabilities for 
cyberwarfare is consistent with authoritative People's 
Liberation Army military writings and that intrusions emanating 
from China continue to focus on the exfiltration of U.S. 
Government information, some of which could be of strategic or 
military utility.
    Given the potential ties between the Chinese Government and 
malicious actors within China, the committee is alarmed that 
two state-owned Chinese firms, Huawei and ZTE, have been 
included on the Department of Agriculture's list of safe and 
approved telecommunications equipment providers for the U.S. 
broadband expansion program. As the Department of Defense at 
times relies on commercial providers through leasing agreements 
or shared infrastructure for the transmission of information, 
the committee is concerned about the potential threat this may 
pose to national security as well as to Department of Defense 
data.
    The committee supports the Department of Defense's ongoing 
efforts to protect its data and networks and encourages the 
Department of Defense to collaborate with its interagency 
partners to share technology, best practices, and knowledge to 
provide for enhanced cyber security across the Government. The 
committee also requests that a designee of the Secretary of 
Defense brief the congressional defense committees on the 
Department of Defense's assessment of the security implications 
of the recent addition of two state-owned Chinese firms to the 
safe and approved telecommunications equipment providers list.

                Cyber Threats to Critical Infrastructure

    The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's 
efforts to safeguard its activities from cyber threats but is 
concerned that the Department remains indirectly vulnerable to 
cyber attack on critical pieces of civilian infrastructure not 
under the Department's protection. Because of the nature of 
their location and construction, U.S. military installations 
are often supported by the surrounding communities' 
infrastructure, including civilian power grids, public works, 
and telecommunications networks. Many of these utilities are 
poorly protected or completely unprotected from potential cyber 
attacks. Loss of service from these utilities could have 
significant implications on the Department's ability to assure 
mission critical capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a study on the threat to the readiness of military 
installations from possible cyber attacks on civilian critical 
infrastructure, and brief the results of that study along with 
a plan to mitigate any risk associated with this vulnerability 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

                            Economic Warfare

    The committee is aware that the national security posture 
of the Nation is directly tied to the health and vitality of 
the economy. Periods of economic hardship have historically 
caused pressures on budgeting, execution, and planning for 
defense capabilities, and thus can slow or halt acquisition and 
modernization activities. Since U.S. military strength is 
underpinned by its technological superiority, the committee is 
aware of the direct dependency that military strength has on 
economic health.
    The committee is concerned that our adversaries understand 
this dependency, and are developing means to attack our 
military strength by attacking our economy. The committee is 
aware that in public statements and documents, Al Qaeda has 
discussed ``bleeding the Nation dry'' through economic attacks, 
and has conducted a number of physical attacks internationally 
in order to cause economic damage. In addition, other nations 
have written about using economic warfare to complement or 
support military actions. Historically, even the United States 
has planned for and conducted economic warfare to subvert 
adversaries during World War II and the cold war.
    The committee is aware that there is a 2009 report from the 
Irregular Warfare Support Program titled ``Economic Warfare: 
Risks and Responses'' that offered plausible scenarios about 
how economic warfare might be used against the United States. 
The committee is concerned that there does not appear to be any 
organization within the Department responsible for looking at 
the threats of economic warfare, or the impact economic attacks 
might have on military capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Office 
of Net Assessment to conduct a study on economic warfare 
threats to the United States and deliver a report on the 
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

     Evaluation of the Alternative Methods for Titanium Production

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate 
alternative methods for titanium production such as 
electrochemical processing to determine potential for such 
production to aid in meeting the Department of Defense's 
requirements for titanium. The evaluation shall include an 
assessment of production capability, cost as compared to the 
cost of traditional methods of titanium production, an 
assessment of the potential to reduce environmental impact 
through such processes, and any other items the Secretary deems 
relevant. The Secretary shall brief the findings of the 
evaluation to the congressional defense committees not later 
than December 1, 2011.

                      Global Posture Review Report

    The committee notes that section 1063 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on the plan for 
basing of forces outside the United States, concurrent with the 
delivery of the report on the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR) required by section 118 of title 10, United States Code. 
Although the report of the 2009 QDR was delivered in February 
2010, the Secretary requested additional time to complete the 
basing report following a global posture review being conducted 
by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee has 
been briefed on the global posture review, but the report 
required by section 1063 of Public Law 111-84 is still 
forthcoming. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to submit the statutorily required report at the earliest 
possible date.

  Government Accountability Office Assessment of Reporting Cost Data 
                               Collection

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for 
implementing a process for collecting an estimate of resources 
required for the Department of Defense to generate both 
internally and externally required reports. The committee 
agrees with the Secretary that additional transparency would be 
useful for decision makers when determining the utility of 
various reporting requirements. However, the committee observes 
that any tool used to collect costs is only as useful as the 
inputs received. In order to ensure that the Secretary's 
guidance is consistently and appropriately applied across the 
Department, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct an assessment of the methodology 
and tools used to collect cost data on both internal and 
external reporting requirements of the Department of Defense, 
and to submit a report of the findings to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 
within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The 
Comptroller General's report should also include any 
recommendations the Comptroller General believes are necessary 
to improve the data collection, transparency, and utility of 
the tool.

               Management and Security of Nuclear Weapons

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
made notable progress in increasing weapons accountability and 
improving security for the nuclear weapons in its possession. 
However, the committee is concerned that the Department may not 
be fully in compliance with the recommendations of the various 
task forces chartered to address nuclear weapons management and 
security. The committee is concerned about the Department's 
progress in addressing those findings and recommendations and, 
therefore, directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to examine the Department of Defense's nuclear security 
programs and provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act. At a minimum, the report should examine the progress the 
Department has made in responding to the recommendations of the 
various task forces, such as the Secretary of Defense Task 
Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons Management, chartered to address 
nuclear weapons management and security and the extent to which 
resource implications of planned security modernization efforts 
have been considered. The report should also examine the extent 
to which the military services' requirements are coordinated 
and synchronized to prevent duplication and overlap, and the 
Department's efforts to secure nuclear weapons stored outside 
of the United States.

              Nuclear Command, Control and Communications

    The committee notes that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review 
(NPR) highlighted an interagency study that was to begin in 
2010 and provide a long-term strategy and needed investments to 
further strengthen nuclear command, control, and communications 
(NC3) capabilities. The NPR also noted that the Secretary of 
Defense has directed a number of initiatives to further improve 
the resiliency of the NC3 system.
    The committee appreciates the Department's focus on this 
vital capability. However, the committee understands that the 
NC3 interagency study has not yet begun.
    The committee is concerned about potential capability gaps 
or shortfalls, particularly with continued delays in the Family 
of Advanced Beyond-line-of-sight Terminals (FAB-T) program. 
Further discussion is contained in the classified annex 
accompanying this report.
    The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks, 
Information and Infrastructure (ASD NII) is designated as the 
enterprise architect for NC3 and responsible for the 
development and maintenance of the defense-wide NC3 
architecture. Although the ASD NII has this architecture 
responsibility, the military services are responsible for 
funding the individual elements of the NC3 system.
    The committee understands that the various NC3 elements are 
highly interdependent; a reduction in funding by one service 
may affect other services' NC3 capabilities. Without strong, 
centralized oversight of the NC3 portfolio and investments, the 
committee is concerned that such dispersion of activity may 
have negative consequences for the overarching NC3 capability.
    The committee therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Networks, Information and Infrastructure, in 
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, 
to submit to the congressional defense committees by February 
6, 2012, a report on the NC3 architecture, long-term strategy, 
and an identification of the NC3 elements across the services, 
including current and needed investments across the Future 
Years Defense Program.
    The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense 
intends to eliminate the position of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Networks, Information and Infrastructure as part of 
the Department's efficiency initiative. If this occurs, the 
committee expects the report to be submitted by the 
Department's designated enterprise architect for NC3.

               Planning for Electromagnetic Pulse Events

    The committee remains concerned with the continued 
vulnerability of the United States homeland to electromagnetic 
pulse (EMP) events, both man-made and naturally occurring. The 
2008 report of the EMP Commission found that ``EMP generated by 
a high altitude nuclear explosion is one of a small number of 
threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic 
consequences.'' The committee believes that the Secretary of 
Defense should ensure that the U.S. Military has the 
appropriate authorities, capabilities, procedures, protections, 
and force structure to prevent or defend against any threats 
posed by EMP generated by a high altitude nuclear or by a 
naturally occurring event, as well as response plans for 
dealing with the aftermath of an EMP event.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services on efforts to prepare 
for, prevent, defend against, and remediate after an EMP event, 
whether natural or manmade. Within 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act the report should include the following:
          (1) An assessment of any threats posed by a natural 
        or manmade EMP event, including identifying of the 
        foreign countries that may be developing weapons 
        capable of producing high altitude EMP, the nature of 
        the capabilities, and possible advances in the 
        capabilities over the next 10 years;
          (2) A description of any efforts by the Department of 
        Defense since the 2008 EMP Commission Report was 
        released to address the findings in (1);
          (3) A description of the appropriate authorities, 
        capabilities, procedures, protections, and force 
        structure that the United States may require over the 
        next 10 years to prevent or defend against threats from 
        foreign actors identified in (1);
          (4) A description of Government contingency response 
        plans to prevent an EMP event, or to mitigate the 
        consequences of or remediate after an EMP event, 
        especially with regard to critical infrastructure;
          (5) In the event that no Government contingency 
        response plans exist, a description of what steps are 
        being undertaken by the Department on an emergency 
        basis to respond to an EMP event;
          (6) A description of plans and guidance for military 
        base commanders to be prepared to act on their own 
        authority to provide support to or receive support from 
        local authorities, police, fire, and other emergency 
        services or critical infrastructure providers, as well 
        as plans and training with civil first responders in 
        their locality to help restore critical infrastructures 
        and assist the civilian population after a catastrophic 
        EMP event and;
          (7) An assessment of additional legal authorities or 
        resources that may be needed to develop contingency 
        response plans and capabilities to protect the American 
        people and critical infrastructures and to remediate 
        after an EMP event.

                  Reduction in Reporting Requirements

    The committee considered the Department of Defense's 
legislative proposal to reduce the congressionally mandated 
reporting requirements for the Department of Defense. In 
reviewing the Department's proposal the committee found that 
many of the reports listed have value and aid the committee in 
conducting its oversight responsibilities, or otherwise serve 
to ensure compliance with the law. In many cases, the reporting 
requirements proposed to be repealed are just notifications of 
the Secretary's actions, such as use of a statutorily 
authorized waiver, or the intent to obligate funds for a 
specified purpose. The committee believes that these 
notification requirements should not be repealed. Elsewhere in 
this title, the committee includes a provision that would 
repeal reporting requirements that it deemed redundant or no 
longer relevant.
    The committee notes that in the justification material 
transmitted with the proposal, the Department stated that many 
of the reports in question provide limited utility or 
informational value. In many cases, the committee agrees with 
the Department's assessment, but also notes that the limited 
utility or value of the report is not a result of congressional 
mandate, but rather results from the Department's failure to 
fully comply with the intent of the request. The committee also 
notes that the Department deemed many reports as unnecessary or 
stated that they do not appear to be useful to members of 
Congress or their staff. The committee cautions the Department 
that it is not its responsibility to determine what is or is 
not valuable to Congress as it conducts its oversight role.
    In its review of the Department's request, the committee 
notes that there were several reporting requirements proposed 
for repeal that were mischaracterized, previously repealed, 
expired, or outside the jurisdiction of the committee. 
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision 
that would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review 
of reporting requirements and to provide recommendations for 
repeal of requirements for consideration by the committee on a 
biennial basis. Furthermore, the committee includes a provision 
elsewhere in this title that would require the Secretary to 
deliver reports, to the maximum extent practical, in electronic 
format in order to reduce printing and reproduction costs.

                      Secure Telecommuting Centers

    The committee is aware that the Defense Intelligence Agency 
operates two pilot projects at Marine Corps Base Quantico, 
Virginia, and Fort Meade, Maryland, for secure telecommuting. 
These 2 centers are available to Department of Defense 
employees with the appropriate level of security clearance, 
with 16 seats currently available. However, the committee is 
concerned that the Department is not adequately taking 
advantage of these secure facilities. For example, the facility 
at Marine Corps Base Quantico is located at the Joint Reserve 
Intelligence Center, which is not a dedicated telecommute 
center. This facility is used primarily during the weekends 
when employees are completing their Reserve duty and the seats 
are generally open during the week.
    The committee encourages the Department to better utilize 
the available space at these two facilities during the work 
week for secure telecommuting purposes. To do so, the committee 
encourages the Department to develop an online reservation and 
facility usage system to generate meaningful quantifiable data 
on utilization and demand for these secure telecommuting sites. 
The committee believes that once the Department has analyzed 
data on the utilization rates and demand, it may wish to expand 
these pilot projects to other facilities. The committee also 
encourages the Department to provide regular updates to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services on utilization rates for these facilities, 
including unmet demand and waiting lists, and any other 
relevant data to be utilized by the Department in assessing the 
effectiveness of these secure telecommuting sites and possible 
future plans for expansion.

          Special Operations Aviation and Rotary Wing Support

    The committee is pleased with the Department of Defense 
decision to establish a new U.S. Army Special Operations 
Aviation Command (ARSOAC) to enhance Army Special Operations 
Aviation as well as provide more capable rotary-wing solutions 
for Special Operations Forces. The committee is aware that the 
new command will be challenged to provide additional 
capabilities and improvements for Army Special Operations 
Aviation amidst ongoing overseas contingency operations, 
increased global requirements and potential future fiscal 
constraints.
    The committee therefore encourages the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict and 
Interdependent Capabilities (ASD SO/LIC&IC), the Commander, 
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and the Commander, 
U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) to ensure 
continued communication with the defense committees to enable 
operational success and optimization of the rotary-wing force 
structure. The committee further encourages the Assistant 
Secretary, Commander, USSOCOM, and Commander, USASOC to 
continue to aggressively pursue programmatic and operational 
solutions to include modernization programs in an effort to 
address rotary-wing shortfalls for direct and indirect special 
operations activities and Special Operations Forces.

                       State Partnership Program

    The committee continues to believe that the National 
Guard's State Partnership Program (SPP) is an important part of 
the larger Department of Defense (DOD) effort to build the 
capacity of our foreign partners in a wide variety of security 
related activities. The committee notes, however, that the 
Department of Defense has yet to issue regulations regarding 
the use of Department funds to pay the costs associated with 
SPP, as required by section 1210 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The 
committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
preparing to issue a Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) on SPP and 
encourages it to complete that process as soon as possible.
    In the meantime, the committee is aware that pending the 
release of the DTM and DOD regulations, some National Guard 
units have taken a conservative view of the scope of authorized 
SPP activities, and have curtailed their engagement with 
partner countries accordingly. The committee commends this 
approach, but does not want SPP activities unnecessarily 
limited and therefore encourages the National Guard to 
proactively consult the Office of the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense if clarification regarding certain 
engagement programs is required.

          The Role of Military Information Support Operations

    The committee is aware of the Secretary of Defense's 
directed name change from Psychological Operations to Military 
Information Support Operations (MISO). This committee is also 
aware of an ongoing implementation strategy that will 
institutionalize this change within the Department. While the 
committee understands the rationale for this change, the 
committee notes with concern that the Department did not 
consult the congressional defense committees in a timely 
fashion as the Psychological Operations activity and mission is 
codified in Section 167 and Section 2011 of title 10, United 
States Code.
    The committee supports efforts by the Commander, U.S. 
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity 
Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities to support geographic 
combatant commander and chiefs of mission requirements through 
the deployment of Military Information Support Teams and 
Regional Military Information Support Teams. The committee is 
encouraged that the Assistant Secretary has recently 
established an Information Operations Directorate dedicated to 
information operations (IO) and MISO, and supports ongoing 
reviews to improve the force structure and readiness framework 
of the Active Component of MISO through the establishment of 
the MISO Command. The committee expects these changes to 
contribute to a more comprehensive information operations and 
strategic communication (IO/SC) strategy that will effectively 
utilize and incorporate MISO to inform and influence foreign 
audiences with cultural precision and enable geographic 
combatant commanders and chiefs of mission to counter enemy 
narratives and activities.
    However, the committee is concerned about a growing 
operational, technical, and capability divide between the 
Active and Reserve Components of MISO forces which could limit 
options available to geographic combatant commanders and chiefs 
of mission as a tool to satisfy critical IO/SC requirements. 
The committee is further concerned about deficiencies in the 
reserve component of MISO and the resultant capabilities gap to 
provide support to the general purpose forces across the full 
spectrum of MISO. This capability divide between Active and 
Reserve components could fracture overall U.S. Government 
efforts and activities, and limit the ability to field a 
globally persistent and culturally aware MISO force that is 
capable of informing and influencing foreign audiences, 
contributing to strategic and tactical IO/SC requirements, and 
integrating with other information disciplines.
    While the committee is encouraged that USSOCOM is shifting 
overseas contingency operations funds into base budget funds 
for Major Force Program (MFP) 11 funded MISO, it is concerned 
that a similar program shift is not taking place for the 
Reserve Component of MISO and therefore may potentially 
constitute a force structure, limited in capability, that is 
dependent on Overseas Contingency Operations funds.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict and 
Interdependent Capabilities in coordination with the Commander, 
USSOCOM to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees that outlines: a comprehensive MISO strategy to 
include the roles, missions, authorities, and capabilities of 
MISO Active and Reserve Components; current and future force 
structure requirements, operational limitations and 
constraints; and efforts to shift required Active and Reserve 
Component funding from overseas contingency operations to base 
funding to support future active and reserve force structure 
requirements. The report should also examine and include 
recommendations for the potential transfer of proponency of the 
MISO Reserve Component from USSOCOM to the Department of the 
Army, similar to the potential transfer of proponency 
responsibilities for U.S. Army Reserve Component Civil Affairs 
forces. The report should also include an analysis of the 
relationship among all IO/SC disciplines to determine if they 
are sufficient or could be improved through changes to 
authorities, processes, procedures, and synchronization 
mechanisms. The committee further directs the Assistant 
Secretary to submit the report to the congressional defense 
committees in unclassified format (with a classified annex as 
required) within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

       U.S. Special Operations Command Undersea Mobility Strategy

    The committee supports the recent program and strategy 
shift in the Undersea Mobility Program by the Commander, U.S. 
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and U.S. Naval Special 
Warfare Command (WARCOM). The committee is pleased and supports 
recent reprogramming requests by USSOCOM and WARCOM to 
consolidate and shift Joint-Multi-Mission Submersible (JMMS) 
and Advance SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) program funds into a 
consolidated Undersea Mobility Way Ahead program designed to 
deliver more platforms sooner and at less cost across the 
Future Years Defense Program. The committee recognizes the 
critical operational importance of this program to provide 
technologically advanced undersea mobility platforms and 
address capability gaps for operating in denied maritime areas 
from strategic distances. The committee therefore stresses the 
need for continued communication with the congressional defense 
committees to ensure programmatic success and prevent previous 
program shortfalls in undersea mobility platform strategies.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


                Section 1001--General Transfer Authority

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make 
transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 
2012 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the 
total amount transferred under this authority to $4.0 billion. 
This section would also require prompt notification to Congress 
of each transfer made.

              Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act

    This section would specify that the budgetary effects of 
this Act for purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
2010 (Public Law 111-139) will be determined by reference to a 
statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by 
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities


 Section 1011--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces To Provide 
    Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counterterrorism 
                               Activities

    This section would extend, by 1 year, the support by joint 
task forces under section 1022(b) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as 
most recently amended by section 1012 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383).

   Section 1012--Extension of Authority of Department of Defense To 
    Provide Additional Support for Counterdrug Activities of Other 
                         Governmental Agencies

    This section would extend, by 2 years, the authority of the 
Department of Defense to provide additional support to 
counterdrug activities of other governmental agencies under 
section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510).

  Section 1013--One-Year Extension of Authority To Provide Additional 
   Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments

    This section would extend, by 1 year, the authority to 
provide support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign 
governments under subsection (a)(2) of section 1033 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85), as most recently amended by section 1014(a) of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (Public Law 111-383).

 Section 1014--Extension of Authority To Support Unified Counter-Drug 
               and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia

    This section would extend, by 1 year, the unified counter-
drug and counterterrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia 
under section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as 
most recently amended by section 1011 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383). The committee recognizes that, although the 
Government of Colombia has made significant progress combating 
narcotics trafficking and designated terrorist organizations 
such as Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), National 
Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of 
Colombia (AUC), these authorities are still required to 
consolidate the strategic gains made over the past decade.

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards


       Section 1021--Budgeting for Construction of Naval Vessels

    This section would repeal an amendment made by section 1023 
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). This section would 
require that a 30-year shipbuilding plan be delivered to 
Congress periodically. The section that would be repealed 
changed the periodicity from an annual requirement to once 
every 4 years to be delivered with the Quadrennial Defense 
Review.
    The committee believes that returning to an annual 
submittal of the plan would promote stability and continuity in 
the planning process, both in the plan itself, and in the 
shipbuilding industrial base. One aspect of the section that 
would be retained is the requirement that the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, within 60 days of submittal of the 
plan, provide an assessment of the sufficiency of funds to 
execute the plan in the budget year and Future Years Defense 
Program to the congressional defense committees.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism


     Section 1031--Definition of Individual Detained at Guantanamo

    This section defines the term ``individual detained at 
Guantanamo'' for purposes of subtitle D.

 Section 1032--Extension of Authority for Making Rewards for Combating 
                               Terrorism

    This section would extend the authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person providing 
information or nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government 
personnel or Government personnel of Allied Forces 
participating in a combined operation with U.S. armed forces 
through fiscal year 2014 and change the annual reporting 
timeline from December to February.

   Section 1033--Clarification of Right To Plead Guilty in Trial of 
                 Capital Offense by Military Commission

    This section would clarify an accused's right to plead 
guilty to a capital offense before a military commission.
    The committee believes that a guilty plea should only be 
accepted if the military judge addresses the accused personally 
and determines that the plea is knowing and voluntary. The 
committee also believes that the parties should be required to 
disclose the terms of any plea agreement in open court at the 
conclusion of sentencing, unless the military judge for good 
cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in 
camera. While the Manual for Military Commissions addresses 
some of these areas, the Secretary of Defense should ensure 
that the Manual fully addresses these issues.

Section 1034--Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, 
                         and Associated Forces

    This section would affirm that the United States is engaged 
in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated 
forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
(Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section would 
also affirm that the President's authority pursuant to the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority 
to detain certain belligerents until the termination of 
hostilities.
    The committee notes that as the United States nears the 
tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the 
terrorist threat has evolved as a result of intense military 
and diplomatic pressure from the United States and its 
coalition partners. However, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and 
associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national 
security. The Authorization for Use of Military Force 
necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing 
and evolving threat posed by these groups.
    The committee supports the Executive Branch's 
interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 
as it was described in a March 13, 2009, filing before the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia. While this 
affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the President's 
existing authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of 
Military Force, the Executive Branch's March 13, 2009, 
interpretation remains consistent with the scope of the 
authorities provided by Congress.

  Section 1035--Requirement for National Security Protocols Governing 
                        Detainee Communications

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a national 
security protocol governing communications of each individual 
detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 
committee believes that all communications for such individuals 
should be reviewed for the protection of the Armed Forces and 
other personnel at Guantanamo Bay as well as to prevent the 
unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

    Section 1036--Process for the Review of Necessity for Continued 
  Detention of Individuals Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
                                  Cuba

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a review process to determine whether the continued 
detention of individuals detained at U.S. Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is necessary to protect U.S. national 
security. This section would not affect the jurisdiction of any 
Federal court to determine the legality of detention of any 
individual detained at Guantanamo Bay.

   Section 1037--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify 
  Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred from 
                  Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
for fiscal year 2012 to modify or construct any facility in the 
United States, its territories, or possessions to house any 
detainee transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the 
custody or under the effective control of the Department of 
Defense.

 Section 1038--Prohibition on Family Member Visitation of Individuals 
            Detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal 
year 2012 for the purpose of allowing family members to visit 
individuals detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba.

    Section 1039--Prohibition on the Transfer or Release of Certain 
                Detainees to or within the United States

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal 
year 2012 to transfer or release certain detainees to or within 
the United States, its territories, or possessions. This 
prohibition applies to individuals detained at U.S. Naval 
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to individuals detained by 
the Department of Defense overseas pursuant to the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 
U.S.C. 1541 note).

   Section 1040--Prohibitions Relating to the Transfer or Release of 
            Certain Detainees to or within Foreign Countries

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense 
for the fiscal year 2012 to transfer or release individuals 
detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or 
within a foreign country or any other foreign entity. This 
prohibition would apply unless the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies to Congress 
at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual, 
that the government of the country or the recognized leadership 
of the entity to which the individual would be transferred:
          (1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or 
        a designated foreign terrorist organization;
          (2) maintains effective control over each detention 
        facility in which an individual is to be detained if 
        the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
          (3) is not, as of the date of the certification, 
        facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect 
        its ability to exercise control over the individual;
          (4) has agreed to take effective steps to ensure that 
        the individual cannot take action to threaten the 
        United States, its citizens, or its allies in the 
        future;
          (5) has taken such steps as the Secretary of Defense 
        determines are necessary to ensure that the individual 
        cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity;
          (6) has agreed to share any information with the 
        United States that is related to the individual or any 
        associates of the individual and could affect the 
        security of the United States, its citizens, or its 
        allies; and
          (7) has agreed to allow appropriate agencies of the 
        United States to have access to the individual, if 
        requested.
    This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense 
from using any funds for the transfer of any such individual to 
the custody or effective control of a foreign country or any 
other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any 
individual transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, to the same country or entity who engaged in terrorist 
activity subsequent to their transfer. The Secretary of Defense 
would be authorized to waive this additional prohibition if the 
Secretary of Defense certifies that such a transfer would be in 
the national security interests of the United States and 
certifies that the general requirements relating to other 
transfers or releases to foreign countries or entities 
described above have been met.
    While this section does not prohibit the transfer of third 
country nationals detained at theater-level detention 
facilities in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the 
committee believes that determinations as to the disposition of 
such individuals who continue to pose a threat to U.S. national 
security should be carefully reviewed and evaluated. This is of 
particular concern as primary responsibility for detention 
operations transitions to the Government of Afghanistan.

    Section 1041--Counterterrorism Operational Briefing Requirement

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide quarterly briefings to the congressional defense 
committees outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism 
operations and related activities involving Special Operations 
Forces not later than March 1, 2012.

   Section 1042--Requirement for Department of Justice Consultation 
                  Regarding Prosecution of Terrorists

    This section would require the Attorney General, Deputy 
Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General for the 
Criminal Division, to consult with the Director of National 
Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before instituting 
any prosecution of an alien in U.S. district court for a 
terrorist offense.

                       Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces


 Section 1051--Annual Assessment and Report on the Delivery Platforms 
     for Nuclear Weapons and the Nuclear Command and Control System

    This section would require the director of the Strategic 
Systems Program, U.S. Navy, commander of the Global Strike 
Command, U.S. Air Force, and Commander, U.S. Strategic Command 
to each complete an assessment of the safety, security, 
reliability, sustainability, performance, and military 
effectiveness for each type of nuclear weapons delivery 
platform and the nuclear command and control system of the 
United States within their direct responsibility.
    This section would further require that these assessments 
be submitted to the Secretary of Defense and Nuclear Weapons 
Council not later than December 1 of each year, along with 
several other reporting requirements. The Secretary of Defense 
would then be required to submit to the President each report 
along with any comments that the Secretary considers 
appropriate, not later than March 1 of each year. Finally, the 
President shall forward to Congress the reports provided by the 
Secretary of Defense along with any comments the President 
considers appropriate. The first submissions to Congress would 
be required by March 15, 2012.
    The committee notes a parallel requirement for the 
assessment of the nuclear weapons stockpile established in 
section 3141 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). The committee 
believes these annual assessments provide oversight value.

      Section 1052--Plan on Implementation of the New START Treaty

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, the 
Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, to 
submit a plan for implementing nuclear force reductions, 
limitations, and verification and transparency measures 
contained in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New 
START).
    The plan would include a description of the nuclear force 
structure under New START, changes necessary and how such 
changes would be implemented under New START, the costs and 
schedule for New START implementation, and options for and 
feasibility of accelerating New START implementation, including 
an assessment of potential cost savings, benefits, and risks of 
accelerating implementation. In this context, the committee 
notes that the next nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 
Review Conference will occur in 2015.
    This section would also require the Comptroller General of 
the United States to review the Department's implementation 
plan and submit the results of this review to the congressional 
defense committees, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 
and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, within 180 days 
after the date the plan is submitted. This section would 
require the plan and review to be submitted in unclassified 
form with a classified annex if necessary.

 Section 1053--Annual Report on the Plan for the Modernization of the 
   Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, and Delivery 
                               Platforms

    This section would require the President to submit an 
annual report for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2019 to the 
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
on the plan for the modernization of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, and delivery platforms. The 
report would include a detailed account of the plans to enhance 
the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile; to modernize the nuclear weapons complex; to 
maintain, modernize, or replace the delivery platforms for 
nuclear weapons; and a detailed account of any plans to retire, 
dismantle, or eliminate any covered nuclear system.
    This section would build upon a single year reporting 
requirement established in section 1251 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), and 
codify direction from the President to the Secretary of Defense 
and the Secretary of Energy to jointly provide annual updates 
to the 1251 Report, as stated in a February 7, 2011, White 
House press statement regarding the Annual Update to the Report 
Specified in Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

      Section 1054--Sense of Congress on Nuclear Force Reductions

    This section would express the sense of Congress that any 
reduction in the nuclear forces of the United States should be 
supported by a thorough assessment of the strategic 
environment, threat, and policy, as well as the technical and 
operational implications of such reductions. This section would 
also state that specific criteria are necessary to guide future 
decisions regarding further reductions in such nuclear forces.

          Section 1055--Limitation on Nuclear Force Reductions

    This section would limit the obligation of amounts 
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to 
the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy for any 
of the fiscal years 2011 through 2017, to retire, dismantle, 
eliminate, or remove from deployed status any covered nuclear 
system (as defined here) of the United States as required by 
the New START Treaty. This limitation would not preclude the 
use of funds for any other treaty requirement, including 
verification. This section would allow this limitation to be 
jointly waived by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Energy, if they submit written notice of the status of carrying 
out the modernization plan described in the most recent report 
required by section 1053 of this Act. If the notice describes 
that such plan is not being carried out, no funds could be 
obligated or expended for a period of 180 days following the 
date on which the President submits the report for the 
modernization plan. If the notice describes that such a plan is 
being carried out, no funds could be obligated or expended for 
a period of 30 days.
    This section would further prohibit the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Energy from obligating or 
expending amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to 
their departments to retire, dismantle, or eliminate any 
nondeployed strategic or non-strategic nuclear weapon, until 
the date that is 90 days after the date on which the Secretary 
of Energy submits written certification that the Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) and 
the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) are fully operational; 
that CMRR-NF and the Plutonium Facility-4 are together able to 
deliver to the nuclear weapons stockpile not less than a total 
of 80 pits per year; that the UPF is able to deliver to the 
nuclear weapons stockpile not less than 80 refurbished or new 
canned subassemblies per year; and that the nuclear security 
enterprise has a capacity that supports two simultaneous life 
extension programs. This limitation would not apply, however, 
to the dismantlement of legacy warheads that are awaiting 
dismantlement on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    Lastly, this section would prohibit the President from 
retiring, dismantling, or eliminating, or preparing to retire, 
dismantle, or eliminate, any nuclear weapon of the United 
States, if such action would reduce the number of such weapons 
to a number that is less than the level described in the New 
START Treaty, unless such action is required by a treaty or 
international agreement specifically approved with the advice 
and consent of the Senate pursuant to Article II, section 2, 
clause 2 of the Constitution; or specifically authorized by an 
Act of Congress.

               Section 1056--Nuclear Employment Strategy

    This section would require that the President not make any 
changes to the nuclear employment strategy of the United States 
unless the President submits a report to Congress describing 
the implications of such changes, certifying that such changes 
do not require a change in targeting strategy from counterforce 
to counter value targeting, and certifying that such proposed 
changes preserve the nuclear force structure triad. The 
President would be required to wait a period of 90 days from 
submission of such report until changes to the nuclear 
employment strategy may be made.

Section 1057--Comptroller General Report on Nuclear Weapon Capabilities 
                    and Force Structure Requirements

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a study on the strategic nuclear 
weapon capabilities, force structure, employment policy, and 
targeting requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
study would be required to include an update to the September 
1991 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report titled 
``Strategic Weapons: Nuclear Weapons Targeting Process'' (GAO/
NSIAD-91-319FS); an assessment of the process and rigor used by 
DOD to determine the effectiveness of nuclear-related 
capabilities and policies in achieving the goals of deterrence, 
extended deterrence, assurance, and defense; and an assessment 
of the requirements of DOD for strategic nuclear bomber 
aircraft and intercontinental ballistic missiles. This section 
would require the Comptroller General to submit one or more 
reports on such study to Congress, and require the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Energy to provide full cooperation 
and access to the Comptroller General for the purposes of 
carrying out this study.

                    Subtitle F--Financial Management


  Section 1061--Amendments Relating to Financial Management Workforce

    This section would establish a financial management 
certification program for the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
committee concurs with the Department on the need to develop 
capable financial managers that understand the advanced fiscal 
concepts incorporated with the management of the United States' 
scarce monetary resources. More than 60 percent of the DOD 
financial community exists outside the auditing, accounting, 
and financial management job classifications. In addition, the 
committee notes that this program should help facilitate the 
Department's ability to achieve clean financial audits by 2017, 
as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Furthermore, the 
committee notes that this program also should ensure that 
financial managers are able to fully understand total force 
management issues, and the impact of budget decisions on 
manpower requirement decisions. Future budget resource managers 
need to be developed with a broad knowledge base.
    However, the committee is concerned that the construction 
of such a program will create yet another training development 
track within the financial community. The committee notes that 
there are similar tracks within each military service. For this 
new initiative to be successful, and to further the efficiency 
initiatives within the Department, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should 
look to consolidate these multiple training development 
programs to effectively train the financial management 
community, while considering the unique fiscal structures and 
management held within each military service. Incorporating 
these multiple tracks into a single defense-wide development 
strategy would ensure that the Department can develop the most 
capable financial management cadre for future fiscal success.

Section 1062--Reliability of Department of Defense Financial Statements

    This section would amend section 1008(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107) by striking ``Not later than October 31'' and inserting 
``Not later than the date that is 180 days prior to the date 
set by the Office of Management and Budget for the submission 
of financial statements''.

   Section 1063--Financial Management Personnel Competency Assessment

    This section would require the Chief Management Officer 
(CMO) of the Department of Defense, in coordination with the 
CMO of each military department, to identify, within 60 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the number of 
financial management personnel and the financial and budgetary 
skills required to: (1) effectively perform financial and 
budgetary accounting, including reconciling fund balances with 
Treasury; (2) document processes and maintain internal controls 
for financial and budgetary accounting cycles; and (3) maintain 
professional certification standards. This section would 
further require that within 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness issue joint guidance regarding the assessment of 
the competency of the Department of Defense financial 
management personnel to perform such financial and budgetary 
accounting skills. Following the issuance of such guidance, 
this section would require the CMO of the Department of Defense 
and the CMO of each military department to conduct a competency 
assessment of the financial management personnel of the defense 
agencies and military departments, respectively, and to each 
submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on such an 
assessment, along with a corrective action plan for any skill 
gaps identified. This section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees regarding the assessment and the corrective action 
plans of the CMOs within 270 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act. Finally, this section would require each CMO to 
designate in the report to the Secretary of Defense which 
office will be responsible for monitoring progress in the 
implementation of any corrective action plan submitted.

    Section 1064--Tracking Implementation of Department of Defense 
                              Efficiencies

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States, for each fiscal year 2012-16, to assess the 
extent to which the Department of Defense is tracking and 
realizing the savings proposed pursuant to the initiative led 
by the Secretary of Defense to identify at least $100.0 billion 
in efficiencies during the period of fiscal years 2012-16. This 
section would require the Comptroller General to submit an 
annual report on the prior fiscal year's assessment and the 
Comptroller General's associated recommendations to the 
congressional defense committees starting on October 30, 2012 
and concluding on October 30, 2016.

    Section 1065--Business Case Analysis for Department of Defense 
                              Efficiencies

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to carry out an assessment of the extent to which 
components of the Department of Defense conducted business case 
analysis prior to recommending and implementing efficiencies 
initiatives. This section would require that such an 
assessment: (1) use a case study approach, (2) identify best 
practices used by components of the Department of Defense; and 
(3) identify deficiencies in the analysis conducted. This 
section would further require, within 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General to submit a 
report of such an assessment to the congressional defense 
committees. This section would require the Comptroller General 
to include in the report recommendations relating to the 
appropriate application of business case analysis and best 
practices that should be adopted by the Department of Defense 
prior to the implementation of any future effort to identify 
savings in defense operations.
    The committee intends this assessment to be selective and 
encourages the Comptroller General to choose case studies from 
each of the four major tracks identified by the Secretary of 
Defense in his May 8, 2010, speech at the Eisenhower Library in 
Abilene, Kansas. The committee intends that this retrospective 
assessment form the basis of the Comptroller General's 
recommendations, to assist the Department of Defense as the 
Department responds to any future guidance it receives from the 
President to identify additional savings for fiscal year 2013 
and beyond. While the committee supports the reduction of waste 
and the improvement of efficiency within the Department of 
Defense, the committee is concerned that short-sighted 
decisions may be made to achieve savings targets, unless 
rigorous analysis is conducted in advance of such decision-
making.

      Section 1066--Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan

    This section would establish a specific sub-activity group 
within each of the operation and maintenance appropriations in 
section 4301 of this Act to identify funds to be executed in 
support of the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) 
plan. This section would also require additional detail 
regarding subordinate activities associated with interim 
milestones for audit readiness, as required to be included in 
the FIAR plan pursuant to section 881 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383).

Section 1067--Corrective Action Plan Relating to Execution of Financial 
                  Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to Congress on a corrective action plan for any 
weaknesses and deficiencies in the execution of the Financial 
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan of the Department 
of Defense required by section 881 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383). The corrective action plan shall identify near-term and 
longer-term measures for resolution of any weaknesses and 
deficiencies in execution of the FIAR plan, shall assign 
responsibilities in the Department of Defense for actions to 
implement such measures, and shall specify steps and identify 
timelines for implantation of such measures.

                    Subtitle G--Studies and Reports


          Section 1071--Repeal of Certain Report Requirements

    This section would repeal certain report requirements for 
the Department of the Defense that were deemed to be redundant 
or no longer relevant.

           Section 1072--Biennial Review of Required Reports

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a review, on a biennial basis, of the Department of 
Defense reports required to be submitted to Congress. In 
conducting the review, the Secretary would evaluate the 
content, quality, cost, and timeliness of the Department of 
Defense's compliance with the reporting requirements. This 
section also would provide the Secretary the authority to 
recommend reports for repeal or modification to the 
congressional defense committees based on the results of the 
biennial review. This section also would require the Secretary 
to conduct a biennial review of the required reports internal 
to the Department and to take such steps as necessary to 
eliminate or modify reports deemed by the Secretary to be 
redundant, overly burdensome, of limited value, unjustifiably 
costly, or otherwise determined to unduly reduce the efficiency 
of the Department.

       Section 1073--Transmission of Reports in Electronic Format

    This section would amend section 122a of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to transmit 
reports required by law in electronic format to the maximum 
extent practical in order to reduce the printing and 
reproduction costs of the Department of Defense.

    Section 1074--Modifications to Annual Aircraft Procurement Plan

    This section would amend section 231(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, which requires the Secretary of Defense to provide 
an annual aviation report to the congressional defense 
committees covering a 30-year time period. This section would 
require the Secretary of Defense to: provide more fidelity on 
cost estimates; include the Department of the Army aviation 
programs in the report; include an inventory of all Department 
of Defense aircraft; and include remotely piloted vehicles, 
rotary-wing aircraft, and operational support and executive 
airlift programs in the report.

   Section 1075--Change of Deadline for Annual Report to Congress on 
             National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment

    This section would amend section 10541(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to change the date for the annual report 
from the Secretary of Defense concerning the equipment of 
National Guard Bureau and the Reserve Components of the Armed 
Forces from February 15 of each year to March 15 of each year.

          Section 1076--Report on Homeland Defense Activities

    This section would amend section 908(a) of title 32, United 
States Code, by adding at the end ``For any fiscal year during 
which no assistance was provided, and no activities were 
carried out, under this chapter, a report is not required to be 
submitted under this section.''

  Section 1077--Report on Nuclear Aspirations of Non-State Entities, 
Nuclear Weapons, and Related Programs in Non-Nuclear Weapons States and 
  Countries Not Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and 
                        Certain Foreign Persons

    This section would amend section 1055(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) to add the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs to the list of committees 
that receive the required report required by such section.

         Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations


Section 1081--Exemption from Freedom of Information Act for Data Files 
  of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance Systems of the 
                          Military Departments

    This section would amend section 2254 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to exempt data 
files of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance 
(MFOQA) systems of the military departments from the Freedom of 
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and would direct the Secretary 
of Defense to prescribe guidance for implementation of this 
authority. The committee is concerned that the release of MFOQA 
data, either when viewed in the aggregate, when combined with 
other information already in the public domain, or already 
subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, could 
reveal sensitive information regarding the tactics, techniques, 
procedures, processes, and operational and maintenance 
capabilities concerning military combat aircraft, units, and 
aircrew.

 Section 1082--Limitation on Procurement and Fielding of Light Attack 
                     Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review the capability of the elements of the Department of 
Defense to conduct light attack and armed reconnaissance 
missions, or to fulfill requests of partner nations for 
training in the conduct of such missions, in the next 
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review required by section 118b 
of title10, United States Code. This section would also 
prohibit obligation or expenditure of funds for the start of 
any new program to procurement of field light attack and armed 
reconnaissance aircraft until the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council validates a requirement for such aircraft and the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
approves the acquisition strategy for such aircraft. This 
section would allow the Secretary to waive the prohibition 
should he determine that acquisition of the aircraft is 
necessary to support contingency operations in Republic of Iraq 
or Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
    The committee is concerned by the disjointed approach taken 
by the Department of Defense in its many efforts to acquire and 
field light attack and armed reconnaissance aircraft. The 
committee is aware of efforts by the Navy and Marine Corps to 
field an operational demonstration of light attack and armed 
reconnaissance aircraft in Afghanistan. The committee has not 
supported these efforts because there has not been a validated 
requirement for such aircraft and the Combined Force Air 
Component Commander has not indicated a need for additional 
assets to provide light attack and armed reconnaissance 
capability for the U.S. Central Command theater of operations. 
The committee is also aware that the budget request contained 
$158.5 million for a new program to procure nine Light Attack 
Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft for the Air Force for 
fiscal year 2012. The LAAR program is proposed to eventually 
procure 15 aircraft to provide the Air Force capability to 
train foreign air forces in light attack aircraft to facilitate 
building partnership capacity (BPC). The committee is not aware 
of a validated requirement for such aircraft and is concerned 
that the use of Air Force procurement funds for the sole 
purpose of BPC may be in violation of section 1301(a) title 31, 
United States Code.

Section 1083--Use of State Partnership Program Funds for Civilians and 
                      Non-Defense Agency Personnel

    This section authorizes the National Guard to use up to 
$3.0 million of the funds made available through the State 
Partnership Program to pay travel and per diem costs associated 
with the participation of U.S. and foreign civilian and non-
defense ministry personnel in authorized National Guard State 
Partnership Program events.

Section 1084--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for Manufacturing Beyond 
Low Rate Initial Production at Certain Prototype Integration Facilities

    This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to 
be appropriated for production activities at prototyping 
integrations facilities beyond initial low rate production in 
order to ensure that full-rate production activities are 
accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. The 
provision also contains a waiver, allowing the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army to waive the prohibition in emergent 
cases or to respond to urgent warfighter needs in theater.

                       Subtitle I--Other Matters


  Section 1091--Treatment under Freedom of Information Act of Certain 
       Department of Defense Critical Infrastructure Information

    This section would exempt certain Department of Defense 
critical infrastructure information from disclosure pursuant to 
Section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code.

 Section 1092--Expansion of Scope of Humanitarian Demining Assistance 
    Program to Include Stockpiled Conventional Munitions Assistance

    This section would update the Department of Defense 
definition of ``Humanitarian Demining Assistance'' to include 
physical security, stockpile management and explosive safety as 
components of assistance and training.

 Section 1093--Mandatory Implementation of the Standing Advisory Panel 
    on Improving Coordination Among the Department of Defense, the 
  Department of State, and the United States Agency for International 
              Development on Matters of National Security

    This section would amend section 1054 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417) to require the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary 
of State, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID) to jointly establish a 
standing advisory panel to advise, review, and make 
recommendations on ways to improve coordination among the 
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and USAID on 
matters relating to national security, including reviewing 
their respective roles and responsibilities.
    The committee believes this panel would provide invaluable, 
objective information and recommendations to both the agencies 
and Congress about how to improve interagency coordination and 
collaboration. The committee encourages the panel to review and 
make recommendations on coordination among, and the respective 
roles and responsibilities of, the agencies in activities such 
as stability operations, foreign assistance, including security 
assistance, strategic communications, public diplomacy, and 
countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 
Further, the committee encourages the panel to review and make 
recommendations on: the structures and systems used to 
coordinate policymaking and policy execution among the 
agencies; efforts to share lessons learned; the coordination of 
activities conducted abroad by the agencies or their 
contractors; the processes and systems for providing and 
incentivizing interagency education, training, and rotational 
assignment opportunities to agency personnel; and other matters 
as the panel considers appropriate.

  Section 1094--Number of Navy Carrier Air-Wings and Carrier Air-Wing 
                              Headquarters

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
maintain a minimum force structure of 10 aircraft-carrier air-
wings and a dedicated headquarters for each carrier air-wing.

Section 1095--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for Organizational 
                   Clothing and Individual Equipment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a budget justification display that covers programs and 
activities for procurement of organizational clothing and 
individual equipment (OCIE). The committee notes that the 
report on the acquisition strategy of OCIE required by the 
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383) has not been delivered. The committee 
continues to be concerned that the military services are 
reliant on overseas contingency operation requests to fund OCIE 
requirements and believes that greater transparency in annual 
budget justification materials would enhance oversight.

           Section 1096--National Rocket Propulsion Strategy

    This section contains five findings concerning the reviews 
undertaken by the Department of Defense (DOD) of the solid 
rocket motor and liquid rocket engine propulsion industrial 
base, the reliance of multiple Government agencies on this 
industrial base, the impact on the Department of Defense 
resulting from the end of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Space Shuttle program and termination of the 
Constellation program, and the increasing cost of DOD systems 
that are in part due to the uncertainty in the industrial base.
    This section would require the President to submit to the 
appropriate congressional committees a national rocket 
propulsion strategy for the United States. Lastly, this section 
would express the sense of Congress that the sustainment of the 
solid rocket motor and liquid rocket engine industrial base is 
a national challenge that spans multiple government agencies 
and requires the Administration's attention.

   Section 1097--Inclusion of Religious Symbols as Part of Military 
                               Memorials

    This section would add a new section to chapter 21 of title 
36, United States Code, and would authorize the inclusion of 
religious symbols as part of a military memorial that is 
established or acquired by the U.S. Government. This section 
would also authorize the inclusion of religious symbols on 
certain military memorials that are not established by the U.S. 
Government.

      Section 1098--Unmanned Aerial Systems and National Airspace

    This section would require a program to integrate unmanned 
aircraft systems into the national airspace system at six test 
ranges.

  Section 1099--Sense of Congress Regarding the Killing of Osama bin 
                                 Laden

    This section would express a number of findings regarding 
Osama bin Laden, al Qa'ida, and the United States Special 
Operations Command. This section would also express the sense 
of Congress regarding the service provided to the nation by the 
United States Special Operations Command and that the killing 
of Osama bin Laden represents a major victory in the war 
against terrorism and radical extremists.

  Section 1099A--Grants to Certain Regulated Companies for Specified 
           Energy Property Not Subject to Normalization Rules

    This section would amend section 1603(f) of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) 
for grants for energy property in lieu of tax credits.

Section 1099B--Submittal of Information Regarding Individuals Detained 
          at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
produce certain materials compiled in coordination with the 
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence 
relating to current and former Guantanamo detainees to 
appropriate committees of Congress.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                 Department of Defense Hiring Processes

    The committee is concerned that Federal hiring process has 
become too lengthy and complicated to attract quality 
candidates and to enable the timely and responsive execution of 
hiring actions. This is of particular concern for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) which currently is seeking to 
expand its acquisition workforce as well as bring back ``in-
house'' functions that are inherently governmental and 
currently performed by contractors. To address many of the 
current inefficiencies, Congress has provided the Department 
with direct and expedited hiring authorities for certain health 
care professions and acquisition workforce positions, and 
science and technology positions for the DOD laboratories. 
However, these are temporary solutions for a fundamental 
problem with the Department's internal hiring processes.
    To promote improvements in the Department's hiring process, 
the committee included section 1113 in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
which gave the Department general flexibilities to reform its 
hiring processes. However, little progress has yet been 
realized.
    The committee notes that the U.S. Merit Systems Protection 
Board (MSPB) has conducted several studies over the years on 
the Federal hiring process, and has made several 
recommendations for reforming the Federal hiring process - many 
of which do not need legislative or regulatory changes. Among 
the MSPB recommendations are:
          (1) Manage hiring as a business function, not an 
        administrative function;
          (2) Evaluate internal agency hiring processes and 
        policies to identify barriers to quality, timely and 
        cost-effective hires;
          (3) Employ rigorous assessment strategies that 
        emphasize quality; and
          (4) Properly prepare human resources staff and 
        managers for their hiring responsibilities.
    Within the Department, human resources management is the 
responsibility of the Civilian Personnel Management System 
(CPMS), which reports to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness. However, the committee is concerned 
that the reliance on outdated staffing systems is hindering the 
Department's ability to recruit and hire qualified individuals 
to fulfill its mission requirements. Since 1997, the Department 
has used the Resumix human resources staffing tool, with each 
component maintaining customized versions. The committee notes 
that a 2009 report by the Inspector General (IG) of the 
Department of Defense found that Resumix has ``experienced a 
number of escalating system issues such as the inability to 
keep pace with continuous technological advancements'' and 
other problems that have made it difficult to maintain and 
operate. As a result, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness tasked the CPMS office with replacing 
Resumix; although, as the committee notes, that has not yet 
occurred.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take immediate steps to 
improve the Department's hiring processes, including more 
involvement of DOD managers in the process as well as 
modernizing staffing tools. Furthermore, the Under Secretary 
should provide a briefing by December 1, 2011, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services on the steps taken to address the findings in the 2009 
IG report, the steps taken to incorporate the MSPB 
recommendations, a description of the initiatives being taken 
towards hiring reform, a summary of any statutory or regulatory 
barriers to hiring process improvements, and the actions taken 
to modernize staffing tools. The briefing also should identify 
the resources required to implement the changes.

  Pay Parity for Department of Defense Federal Wage System Employees 
                Employed at Joint Military Institutions

    The committee is aware that the recommendations made under 
the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 1990, as amended 
(Public Law 101-510) to create joint military installations 
throughout the continental United States and Hawaii resulted in 
instances where the constituent installations are not all 
located within the same pay locality. The President's Pay Agent 
subsequently assigned General Schedule employees of certain 
joint military installations to a single locality area, 
resulting in a disparity between General Schedule and Federal 
Wage System employees employed at the particular joint military 
installation. The committee recognizes the impact of such 
disparity on effective personnel management.
    An example of this is Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst 
where the former McGuire Air Force Base and Fort Dix are in the 
Philadelphia cost of living area, and the former Lakehurst NAES 
is in the New York cost of living area. The President's Pay 
Agent placed Joint Base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst in the New York 
locality pay area effective October 2009. The Federal 
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC) recommended 
consolidation of the Federal Wage System area within the same 
General Schedule locality pay area in October 2010; however, no 
further action has been taken.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Office 
of Personnel Management, after consultation with the Secretary 
of Defense, to make a timely determination on the FPRAC 
recommendation of October 2010 with respect to Department of 
Defense Federal Wage System employees employed at joint 
military institutions constituted on or before the date of 
enactment whose constituent installations are not all located 
within the same pay locality. The Director of the Office of 
Personnel Management shall provide a briefing to the Senate and 
House Committees on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the actions 
being taken to address the FPRAC recommendation by November 15, 
2011.

    Performance Management Authorities for the Department of Defense

    Section 1113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) repealed the Department of 
Defense (DOD) National Security Personnel System. In addition 
to requiring the conversion of all DOD civilian employees back 
to the General Schedule (GS) system, section 1113 provided the 
Department with performance management and hiring flexibilities 
which would apply across the DOD civilian workforce, within the 
context of the existing GS system and consistent with 
collective bargaining principles. The committee is aware that 
the transition office has been moving forward in its efforts to 
develop the new authorities, starting with a ``New Beginnings'' 
conference held in September 2010 that brought together DOD 
management and labor representatives to discuss perspectives on 
performance management. As a next step, design teams have been 
established to begin the development of a plan for implementing 
the performance management and hiring flexibilities authorized 
in section 1113. In the area of performance management, the 
committee encourages the design teams to consider methods that 
more closely link pay with performance rather than tenure, 
which has been the primary persistent criticism of the GS 
system. Such incentives could include both monetary (such as 
quality step increases or cash awards for performance) and non-
cash awards. These are just examples of the range of options 
the committee believes the performance management design team 
should consider. In addition, the Department should develop 
measurable personnel performance metrics and consider whether 
professional certification programs are appropriate.
    In addition, the committee recognizes that the Department 
needs flexibility to efficiently hire and retain qualified 
individuals. The committee encourages the hiring design team to 
review the lessons learned from the expedited hiring 
authorities provided for the acquisition workforce and other 
demonstration projects as well as undertake a review of, and 
consider changes to, the current position classification system 
to allow greater hiring and promotion flexibilities as well as 
developing career paths that would allow civilian employees to 
develop professionally. Furthermore, the committee believes 
that in order for these authorities to be properly implemented, 
and to ensure enduring leadership and commitment, the 
Department must establish robust training programs for managers 
and human resources offices, as called for in section 1113. 
Finally, the committee recognizes that while the work of the 
design teams is not expected to be completed until September 
2011, legislation may be needed to address issues raised that 
might hinder the ability of the Department to implement a fair 
and transparent performance management system. Therefore, the 
committee has included language a provision elsewhere in this 
title that may facilitate legislative changes as the process 
moves forward.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


Section 1101--Amendments to Department of Defense Personnel Authorities

    This section would make technical amendments to the 
Department of Defense performance management, hiring and 
training authorities in section 9902 of title 5, United States 
Code. This section also would change the heading of chapter 9, 
title 5, United States Code, to reflect the fact that the 
Department of Defense National Security Personnel System was 
repealed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

     Section 1102--Provisions Related to the Department of Defense 
                     Performance Management System

    This section would make technical amendments to the 
reporting requirements in section 9902 of title 5, United 
States Code. Section 9902 authorizes the Secretary of Defense 
to implement a performance management system to replace the 
National Security Personnel System, which was repealed in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84). Within 1 year after date of enactment (October 28, 
2009), the Secretary of Defense was required to report to the 
Senate and House Committees on Armed Services, the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the 
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the 
Department's plan for the new personnel management system. 
However, while significant progress has been made, no new 
performance management system has been implemented.
    This section would extend the reporting requirements to 
ensure that the relevant congressional committees are kept 
apprised of the progress toward a new Department of Defense 
performance management system. In addition, the Comptroller 
General of the United States was required to review the 
Department's plan and to assess employee satisfaction with the 
new system. Since there currently is no plan to review, this 
provision would extend the existing reporting mandate and 
clarify the elements on which the Comptroller General Office 
should report to the relevant congressional committees.

   Section 1103--Repeal of Sunset Provision Relating to Direct Hire 
                Authority at Demonstration Laboratories

    This section would make permanent the direct hire 
authorities that were provided to the Department of Defense 
(DOD) demonstration laboratories by section 1108 of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(Public Law 110-417). The committee notes that the direct hire 
authority has been an effective tool to the DOD demonstration 
laboratories in recruiting qualified individuals with advanced 
scientific and engineering degrees.

   Section 1104--Denial of Certain Pay Adjustments for Unacceptable 
                              Performance

    This section would prohibit payment of the annual 
nationwide adjustment to any Federal civilian employee who is 
rated as ``below satisfactory'', which is estimated to be about 
1 percent of the Department of Defense's more than 700,000 
civilian employees. Currently, all Federal civilian employees, 
no matter how they are rated on their performance, receive the 
annual nationwide adjustment in January of each year. Federal 
civilian employees who are rated as ``below satisfactory'' 
still receive an increase in salary despite the fact that they 
are underperforming. An incentive is necessary to entice these 
employees to improve their job performance.

Section 1105--Revisions to Beneficiary Designation Provisions for Death 
          Gratuity Payable Upon Death of a Government Employee

    This section would amend section 8102 of title 5, United 
States Code, to allow a Federal civilian employee to designate 
anyone they choose to receive the entirety of a death gratuity 
if the Federal civilian employee dies of injuries incurred in 
connection with service with an Armed Force in a contingency 
operation. Currently, section 8102 restricts Federal civilian 
employees from designating more than 50 percent of a death 
gratuity to an unrelated person. This section would provide 
parity with the beneficiaries of military service members who 
may receive 100 percent of a death regardless of the 
relationship to the deceased.

  Section 1106--Extension of Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on 
   Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal Civilian 
                       Employees Working Overseas

    This section would extend, for 2 additional years, the 
authority of the head of a Federal agency to waive the 
limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a 
Federal civilian employee who performs certain work in an 
overseas location that falls under the responsibility of U.S. 
Central Command, an overseas location that falls under the 
responsibility of U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military 
operation, or responding to an emergency declared by the 
President. The payment may not exceed the annual rate of salary 
payable to the Vice President under section 104 of title 3, 
United States Code.

            Section 1107--Waiver of Certain Pay Limitations

    This section would amend section 9903 of title 5, United 
States Code, which provides authority to the Secretary of 
Defense to hire highly qualified experts and prescribes 
appropriate pay rates. This section would clarify the intent of 
that statute to allow such individuals who are serving in a 
contingency operation area, as defined in section 101 of title 
10, United States Code, to receive similar benefits and 
compensation as other Federal civilian employees serving in 
those areas currently receive. This includes premium pay or 
danger pay allowances, compensatory time off, and other 
appropriate compensation or allowances authorized under chapter 
59 of title 5, United States Code.
    The committee is aware that highly qualified experts 
currently serving in areas of contingency operations have been 
denied any type of hazardous duty compensation because the 
Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management 
have interpreted such compensation as an incentive, which is 
explicitly prohibited under section 9903 of title 5, United 
States Code. While the committee does not agree with the 
interpretation that such hazardous duty compensation is an 
incentive, this section would remove any possible ambiguity. 
Furthermore, the committee encourages the Department to take 
immediate action to remedy the compensation inequities 
experienced by the highly qualified experts currently working 
in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan.

        Section 1108--Services of Post-Combat Case Coordinators

    This section would require that each Federal agency that 
sends civilian employees on hazardous duty assignments in 
support of U.S. military operations in a contingency operation 
assign post-combat case coordinators to employees who sustain a 
traumatic injury, or experience a serious disease or illness 
during performance of their duty in the contingency operation. 
The committee notes that Federal civilian employees 
increasingly are providing important support in contingency 
operations, and many are experiencing serious medical problems 
upon returning to their regular assignment.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
already assigns caseworkers to its civilian expeditionary 
workforce. The responsibility of these caseworkers is to guide 
and direct all deployed civilians to available resources, 
provide intervention in problem claims, and work with the 
service component's Injury Compensation Program Administrators 
to help injured employees navigate the Office of Worker's 
Compensation Program claims process. However, the committee is 
concerned that no similar support yet exists for civilians 
deployed from other Federal agencies who need assistance 
coordinating benefits between the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program and the Federal Employees Compensation Act 
(Public Law 89-554).

  Section 1109--Authority to Waive Recovery of Certain Payments Made 
    under Civilian Employees Voluntary Separation Incentive Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
waive repayment of the voluntary separation incentive pay 
(VSIP) for employees who accepted a reassignment with the 
Department of Defense during the period of April 1, 2004, to 
May 1, 2008, and had received written assurance that repayment 
would not be required or would be waived. The committee notes 
that the individuals who were rehired were assured that they 
would not be required to repay their separation pay based on an 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) national emergency 
guidance issued following September 1, 2001. However, due to an 
oversight, the committee understands that it was subsequently 
determined the guidance did not apply to employees covered 
under section 9902, title 5, United States Code, which 
effectively superseded the OPM guidance. The committee 
understands that approximately 40 individuals were affected by 
this determination and that the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service now is seeking VSIP repayment from these individuals. 
While the Department no longer waives VSIP repayment for 
individuals who have been rehired since May 1, 2008, the 
committee believes those individuals who returned to the 
Department immediately following the declaration of a national 
emergency, and who received written assurances that repayment 
would not be required, deserve to retain, or be repaid, their 
voluntary separation incentive pay.

          Section 1110--Extension of Continued Health Benefits

    This section would extend for 5 years the ability of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to pay the Federal Government's 
share and administrative fees for Temporary Continuation of 
Coverage (TCC) of health insurance premiums for DOD employees 
who have been separated due to a reduction in force action, as 
described in section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5, United States 
Code. Originally authorized by section 346 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-
484), the current authority expires on: December 31, 2011, or 
February 1, 2012, if a specific notice of the separation is 
given to the individual before December 31, 2011. TCC enables 
Federal employees who are separated from Federal service to 
continue their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) 
coverage for up to 18 months. Payment of the Federal Government 
portion of the TCC FEHB premium and the 2 percent 
administrative fee has eased a tremendous financial hardship on 
former DOD employees who lost their jobs due to Base 
Realignment and Closure activities. This payment also has 
enabled families to continue health coverage that they 
otherwise may not have been able to afford.

    Section 1111--Authority to Waive Maximum Age Limit for Certain 
                              Appointments

    This section would amend section 3307 of title 5, United 
States Code, to allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to waive 
the hiring and retirement age limits for Federal law 
enforcement and fire fighter positions in certain 
circumstances. While the committee supports the Department's 
plan to scale back significantly the use of contractors in 
support services, it is concerned that there may be unintended 
consequences when converting law enforcement and fire fighting 
functions to Federal Government positions. Even if the 
contractor employees currently performing these functions would 
like to transition into positions with the Federal Government, 
many may not be able to compete for such positions because of 
the existing statutory age limits. This section would help 
rectify that situation by explicitly allowing the waiver of the 
hiring age limits for Federal law enforcement and firefighter 
personnel in these circumstances, thus ensuring that the 
Federal Government is able to hire these experienced 
individuals. The committee expects that any DOD-established 
physical or medical standards for these positions still would 
apply.

  Section 1112--Sense of Congress Relating to Pay Parity for Federal 
       Employees Serving at Certain Remote Military Installations

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Defense 
(DOD) shall develop procedures for determining locality pay to 
address circumstances unique to DOD civilian personnel. These 
circumstances would address pay parity issues for Department of 
Defense (DOD) civilian personnel employed at military 
installations located in remote locations where such employees 
may have to live in a higher cost municipality in the vicinity. 
An example of this would be the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare 
Training Center which has had difficulty recruiting and 
retaining qualified civilians to work at this remote training 
center.

           Section 1113--Reports by Office of Special Counsel

    This section would make a technical amendment to section 
1213 of title 5, United States Code, regarding the content of 
whistleblower reports transmitted to Congress. While the 
committee recommends this as an efficiency initiative, it notes 
that this section still would ensure that Congress receives 
sufficient information necessary to determine if any follow-up 
action is needed on a whistleblower case.

               Section 1114--Disclosure of Senior Mentors

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
publicly disclose the names of senior mentors. This section 
would expand upon section 1102 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) that would codify Department of Defense policy (issued in 
April 2010) that senior mentors be hired as highly qualified 
experts and comply with all Federal laws and regulations on 
personnel and ethics.

             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee focused on three broad areas in this title. 
First, the committee continued its effort to ensure that both 
the necessary resources and the proper degree of oversight were 
brought to bear on the war against al Qa'ida and other militant 
extremists in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Second, the committee worked to 
enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to build the 
capacity of nations that have chosen to partner with the United 
States in combating militant extremism. Third, the committee 
strengthened its oversight of Department of Defense efforts to 
identify and prepare for future threats to U.S. national 
security.
    On December 16, 2010, the Administration released the 
findings of its annual Afghanistan and Pakistan Review, noting 
significant operational gains in Afghanistan due to an 
increased operational tempo, expanded special operations forces 
targeting of Taliban leadership in Afghanistan, and expanded 
local security measures at the village level. These operations 
have reduced Taliban influence and arrested the momentum they 
had achieved in recent years. While noting the operational 
progress achieved in 2010, the Administration's review also 
noted these gains were ``fragile and reversible,'' and stated 
``the challenge remains to make our gains durable and 
sustainable.'' To consolidate these gains, the committee has 
extended the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP), 
adding additional funds made available by the termination of 
CERP in Iraq as U.S. forces withdraw from that country. The 
committee has also extended the Afghan Infrastructure Fund.
    The committee applauds the declaration of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) at the November 2010 Lisbon 
Summit of a transition process that will continue through 2014, 
when the Afghan Government will assume full authority for 
security in Afghanistan. While guaranteeing a U.S. troop 
presence through 2014, the committee remains concerned that the 
Administration still plans to redeploy troops in July 2011 
without having specified what conditions will determine the 
decision regarding troop withdrawals. In order to assist 
continued allied participation in the fight against al Qa'ida 
and other violent extremists, the committee has authorized the 
continuation of the Coalition Support Fund and the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund, although the committee notes with 
concern the deterioration in relations between the United 
States and Pakistan in early 2011 and subsequent statements by 
the Government of Pakistan that threaten to undermine our 
concerted effort against common threats.
    The committee seeks to enhance the ability of the 
Department of Defense to build the capacity of nations that 
have chosen to partner with the United States in combating 
militant extremism. Recent turmoil in the greater Middle East 
has demonstrated the importance of strong military-to-military 
relationships, as throughout the region there was a strong 
correlation between the existence and strength of the military-
to-military relationship between the United States and the 
partner nation and the level of violence in that country during 
the ``Arab Spring'' protests. Given the increased uncertainty 
regarding the nature of the regimes that will emerge from the 
turbulence of the past months, these military-to-military 
relationships are more vital than ever. Our forces' ability to 
conduct in-country training with partner nation 
counterterrorism units will be critical in disrupting al Qa'ida 
and affiliated groups' attempts to exploit the region's 
turmoil. Consequently, the committee has increased the 
authorization for the 1206 program from $350.0 million to 
$400.0 million as a hedge against the uncertainty of the 
region's revolutions.
    The committee believes that the stability and security of 
the Republic of Iraq is an important U.S. national interest. 
Yet the committee is concerned that the scheduled departure of 
U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011, will leave the 
Iraqi Security Forces with several critical capabilities gaps 
that may render it unable to achieve minimum combat readiness, 
thereby jeopardizing Iraq's stability. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to consider multiple methods of 
strengthening the military-to-military relationship with Iraq, 
to include - but not limited to - joint military exercises and 
the expansion of Department of State programs that bring Iraqi 
officers and non-commissioned officers to the United States for 
education and training.
    The committee has also taken several steps to strengthen 
its oversight of Department of Defense efforts to identify and 
prepare for future threats to U.S. national security. While 
commending the Secretary of Defense for previous reports on the 
military power of the People's Republic of China and the 
Islamic Republic of Iran, the committee has directed the 
Secretary of Defense to provide more detailed reporting on each 
country's missile capabilities and proliferation activities. 
The committee has also directed a classified study be 
undertaken by an independent research entity on any gaps 
between these country's anti-access capabilities and U.S. 
forces' ability to overcome them. Furthermore, the committee 
has directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct assessments of 
two less conventional, but potentially grave, threats to 
national security: an assessment of the energy security of the 
NATO alliance, and an assessment of the risk posed to the 
United States or U.S. allies as a result of U.S. Federal debt 
owned by the People's Republic of China. Finally, the committee 
remains concerned about instability on the Korean peninsula, 
particularly given anticipated leadership changes within the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Therefore, the 
committee includes a requirement for a detailed report on the 
military and security developments involving the DPRK.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                     African Security Sector Reform

    The committee supports continued efforts to promote African 
security sector reform and to increase the professionalism and 
accountability of civilian control of African security forces. 
The committee notes that increased professionalism and 
accountability of civilian control of security forces reduces 
the risk posed to civilians by soldiers who might otherwise 
commit abuses with impunity. Specifically, the committee 
commends the commitment of the United States armed forces to 
security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
(DRC), as evidenced by the ongoing U.S.-DRC training and 
advisement partnership at Kisangani in the DRC. The committee 
urges the Department of Defense to continue to prioritize such 
efforts as a part of its overall strategy for promoting peace, 
stability, and human rights on the African continent.

   Closure of United States Military Installations and Alteration of 
     Basing Arrangements in European Command Theater of Operations

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense plans 
to reduce the number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) stationed in 
Europe from four to three, in accordance with a decision 
announced in April, 2011. The committee is concerned that 
reductions below three BCTs in Europe could impair the ability 
of the combatant command to fulfill the Unites States' 
commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
and theater cooperation activities.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
consult with Congress prior to any decision to implement the 
closure of any installation or alteration of a permanent basing 
arrangement in the European theater. Furthermore, the committee 
encourages the Secretary to consider the importance of the 
United States NATO commitments and the reliance of our allies 
upon the United States military force structure for deterrence 
and defense. Likewise, the committee notes that recently 
expanded missions of the U.S. forces in Europe should also be 
considered, including the use of Joint Task Forces to train and 
build mutual capabilities with partner countries, support 
missile defense, and cybersecurity missions.

               Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program

    The committee recognizes the Euro-North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) program 
as a unique opportunity to improve relationships with 
international partners and train allied pilots to a consistent 
standard. Currently, section 21(g) of the Arms Export Control 
Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(g)) and the ENJJPT memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) require nations participating in the ENJJPT 
program to share in the costs of the program. The committee 
believes that it is in the national security interests of the 
United States and NATO to expand participation in ENJJPT to 
include additional NATO and certain Partnership for Peace 
nations, and to establish mechanisms to assist these nations in 
meeting the cost-sharing obligations for participation. 
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air 
Force to seek an amendment to the ENJJPT MOU to allow signatory 
nations to sponsor the participation of pilots from other NATO 
and Partnership for Peace nations in the ENJJPT program.

                   Joint Military Exercises with Iraq

    The committee believes that the stability and security of 
the Republic of Iraq is an important national interest given 
Iraq's role as an ally in the global war on terrorism, as a 
potential counterweight against Iranian aggression, as a 
bulwark of representative government in the Arab world, and as 
a potential supplier of energy resources to the United States 
and allied countries. Yet in November 2010, the Inspector 
General of the Department of Defense issued a report warning 
that the pending departure of U.S. forces by December 31, 2011, 
will leave U.S. forces little time to assist the Iraqi Security 
Forces (ISF) in developing its logistics system, and cautioned 
that without viable logistical and industrial capabilities, the 
ISF may be unable to achieve minimum combat readiness, 
potentially endangering the Republic of Iraq's stability. In 
January 2011, U.S. Forces-Iraq (USF-I) reported that additional 
investments will have to be made to fill what it described as 
``essential gaps'' in Iraqi Security Forces capabilities, 
noting that additional funds and training personnel may be 
required after 2011 to ensure that the Iraqi Security Force is 
capable of providing for Iraq's security. Among the gaps cited 
by analysts are logistics, training, special operations, and 
air space management. In testimony before the committee on 
February 16, 2011, the Secretary of Defense said, ``The truth 
of the matter is, the Iraqis are going to have some problems 
that they're going to have to deal with if we are not there in 
some numbers,'' and that ``there is certainly, on our part, an 
interest in having an additional presence'' above levels set by 
the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement.
    There currently is no agreement in place for U.S. forces to 
remain in Iraq after December 31, 2011, beyond the projected 
150-member Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) to be 
based in Embassy Baghdad. Yet the committee believes that a 
residual U.S. force presence in Iraq, after 2011, and above the 
OSC-I presence would be beneficial in order to continue to 
train and advise Iraqi units in functional areas where it lacks 
capability. If the Government of Iraq requests to discuss 
agreements that would retain a U.S. force-presence in Iraq, the 
committee would look favorably on such a discussion, and 
encourages the Department of Defense and the Department of 
State to pursue such an agreement. Elsewhere in this title, the 
committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary 
of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees 
within 10 days of reaching such an agreement or, in absence of 
such an agreement, to report on the extent which participation 
by the Department of Defense in OSC-I programs will address the 
capability gaps of the Iraqi Security Forces.
    In the event that such an agreement proves unattainable, 
the committee believes the Department of Defense, in 
consultation with the Department of State, should consider 
methods to strengthen the military-to-military relationship 
with Iraq in order to secure the gains that have been made to 
date, contribute to Iraq's stability, deter potential 
aggression by Iraq's neighboring countries, further 
professionalize the Iraqi military, and assist Iraq in becoming 
a positive force for stability in the Middle East. The 
committee does not intend to be prescriptive in describing 
activities, but believes that the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State should consider the value of conducting 
joint exercises with the Iraqi military, similar to the Bright 
Star exercises carried out with the Arab Republic of Egypt. 
Further, the committee encourages the Department of Defense and 
the Department of State to explore ways to bring more Iraqi 
officers and noncommissioned officers to the United States for 
education, training, and similar activities. The committee 
further requests that the Department of Defense, within a 
reasonable period of time, provide a briefing to the committee 
on ways to strengthen the U.S.-Iraq military relationship.

 Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of 
                                 China

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for 
delivering a comprehensive report on the ``Military and 
Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of 
China,'' in accordance with section 1202 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65), including a discussion of the extent to which China's 
ballistic and cruise missiles increase its ability to control 
access to the western Pacific. The committee does not believe, 
however, that the report sufficiently addressed China's 
domestic production capabilities or proliferation of these 
technologies.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include 
greater detail on the ballistic and cruise missile activities 
of the People's Republic of China, in subsequent submission of 
report required by section 1202, including China's domestic 
development and production of these capabilities, and any 
Chinese proliferation activities of technologies related to 
cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, 
and weapons of mass destruction to other countries. This detail 
should include, but should not be limited to, the proliferation 
of missile technologies and components at or near the threshold 
prohibited by the Missile Technology Control Regime and other 
multinational export control regimes, in as much unclassified 
detail as possible.
    Finally, the committee encourages the Secretary to submit 
the next report by March 1, 2012, as required by section 1202.

                         Military Power of Iran

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for the 
2010 report on the military power of the Islamic Republic of 
Iran, pursuant to section 1245 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), in 
particular for the report's attention to Iran's rocket and 
missile capabilities and Iran's proliferation activities. The 
committee encourages the Department to provide equal or greater 
detail on Iran's missile programs and missile-related 
proliferation activities in future reports.

                  NATO Special Operations Headquarters

    The committee recognizes the tremendous achievements of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations 
Headquarters (NSHQ) in advancing and building a self-sustaining 
and interoperable special operations force across the alliance. 
The committee further recognizes the courageous direct and 
indirect contributions that NATO special operations forces have 
made particularly in Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee 
notes that the current authorized base funding level for the 
NATO Special Operations Headquarters is $50.0 million and 
recognizes that this base funding level neither precludes nor 
prevents NSHQ from supplemental funding in support of 
additional overseas contingency requirements and encourages the 
Department of Defense to consider using Overseas Contingency 
Operations funds for this purpose where appropriate.

         Report on Deployment of Assets and Personnel to Libya

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services upon making a decision to task any asset of 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to Libya, if such asset is 
currently tasked to support ongoing contingency operations in 
Afghanistan or Iraq. Any such notification must be submitted no 
later than 72 hours after the redeployment or tasking of a DOD 
asset in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation Unified 
Protector. Such a notification should include at a minimum the 
number and type of assets and associated personnel transferred 
from supporting operations in Afghanistan or Iraq to supporting 
operations in Libya, including but not limited to: 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets; 
close air support assets (to include unmanned platforms); 
aerial refueling assets; and the diversion of any logistical or 
other resources used to support operations in Afghanistan or 
Iraq.
    The Secretary of Defense is further directed to report the 
deployment of any U.S. military personnel or Department of 
Defense civilians to sovereign Libyan territory, whether held 
by government or rebel forces.

                Taxing Foreign Assistance in Afghanistan

    The committee is concerned over recent actions by the 
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which has 
contravened existing bilateral agreements by sending past-due 
tax bills to U.S. companies implementing U.S. Government 
programs to deliver much-needed stabilization and 
reconstruction assistance to the Afghan people. While the 
committee understands that taxing foreign companies operating 
in Afghanistan is a potentially important source of revenue for 
the Afghan Government, U.S. law forbids the taxing of U.S. 
Government assistance. Moreover, there are reports that some 
Afghan Government officials have reportedly threatened 
companies with arrests of their employees, loss of licenses, 
and confiscation of aid goods should those companies ignore the 
tax bills. These actions are counter-productive to both Afghan 
and U.S. national security, as they threaten to undermine 
public support for U.S. Government assistance efforts necessary 
to create a stable Afghanistan capable of preventing that 
country from once again becoming a safe haven for extremists 
groups seeking to attack the U.S. homeland.
    The U.S. Government and the Afghan Government carefully 
negotiated bilateral agreements to exempt U.S. companies 
operating in Afghanistan from such taxation. The committee 
therefore urges the Department of Defense and the Department of 
State to examine the accords and work with their Afghan 
counterparts to eliminate any confusion or disagreement 
regarding the tax-exempt status for U.S.-based companies that 
implement U.S. Government assistance programs in Afghanistan.

                    Transparency in NATO Arms Sales

    The committee is concerned about press reports that 
indicate members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO) Alliance have engaged in, or planned to engage in, major 
sales or financing of defense articles and defense services 
with non-NATO member states, including the Russian Federation. 
According to recent press reports, a corporation in the Federal 
Republic of Germany will build a combat training center for the 
Russian Army in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The German 
corporation would also reportedly work with a Russian 
corporation to handle the support, repair, and modernization of 
military equipment. Other press reports have indicated that a 
corporation in the French Republic has recently contracted to 
sell Mistral amphibious assault craft to the Russian 
Federation. The committee is concerned that such sales and 
financing could adversely affect the deterrence and defense 
capabilities and the cohesion of the NATO alliance, as well as 
other security commitments by the United States.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense, in cooperation with the Economic Secretariat of NATO, 
to monitor these trends and purchases, and to analyze any 
potential dangers that such sales and financing might pose to 
the cohesion of the NATO alliance. The committee requests a 
briefing from the Secretary of Defense about any adverse 
political and strategic impacts that these sales and financing 
have had or could have on the integrity and cohesion of the 
NATO alliance.

           Unfunded Requirements of the Department of Defense

    The committee notes that in the past, the service chiefs 
have submitted a list of unfunded requirements for each fiscal 
year, upon the request of the committee. The committee believes 
these lists have provided valuable insight into the priorities 
of the military departments, in the event that additional 
resources can be made available during the annual authorization 
of appropriations for the Department of Defense. While the 
committee recognizes that the President's request represents 
the highest priorities of the Department, there are always 
programs for which planned funding would be un-executable or 
circumstances that have changed since the submission of the 
President's request. The committee has historically reinvested 
these funds in items from the unfunded requirements list of the 
service chiefs. However, the committee also assesses that, in 
recent years, the level of detail of the service chiefs' 
unfunded requirements lists has diminished. Additionally, the 
committee notes that the failure of the Department of Defense 
to provide unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2012 in a 
timely manner harmed the ability of the committee to perform 
oversight of the Department of Defense. The committee urges the 
service chiefs to continue to provide detailed unfunded 
requirements lists to the committee so it may continue to 
ensure the most efficient use of funds to meet mission 
requirements.

         United States Missile Defense Cooperation with Russia

    The committee welcomes long-standing efforts by the United 
States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to 
seek cooperative opportunities with the Russian Federation on 
missile defense through bilateral U.S.-Russia discussions and 
the NATO-Russia Council.
    During the November 2010 summit meetings of NATO Heads of 
State and Government in Lisbon, Portugal, NATO members agreed 
to continue a joint missile threat assessment with Russia, 
reaffirmed their readiness to invite Russia to explore jointly 
the potential for linking NATO and Russian missile defense 
systems, and sought to resume theater missile defense 
exercises. However, the committee notes that Russia still 
appears to oppose the latter phases of the phased, adaptive 
approach (PAA) for missile defense in Europe. As Russian 
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated in February 2011, 
``Experts are fully aware that the 3rd and the 4th stages of 
the US `phased, adaptive approach' . . . if implemented, will 
mean reaching a strategic level which directly infringes the 
efficiency of Russian nuclear deterrent forces. If our concerns 
are not taken into account, if no equitable joint work is 
achieved, then we will have to compensate for the emerging 
imbalance.''
    The committee notes a pledge made by the President, in a 
letter to Senator Mitch McConnell dated December 18, 2010, that 
``as long as I am President, and as long as the Congress 
provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue 
to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the 
United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and 
partners. My Administration plans to deploy all four phases of 
the EPAA [European Phased Adaptive Approach].'' The letter 
further stated that, ``the continued development and deployment 
of U.S. missile defense systems, including qualitative and 
quantitative improvements to such systems, do not and will not 
threaten the strategic balance with the Russia Federation.''
    The committee commends this pledge, supports the full 
implementation of the four phases of the PAA, and shares the 
President's view that planned U.S. missile defenses do not and 
will not threaten the strategic balance with the Russia 
Federation. Furthermore, the committee believes that the United 
States should improve U.S. missile defensive capabilities both 
quantitatively and qualitatively and opposes any efforts by the 
United States or Russia to negotiate a future treaty or 
agreement that may limit U.S. missile defense capabilities.
    The committee is also aware that Russia has proposed 
splitting the defense of Europe into ``sectors'' whereby Russia 
would protect Eastern Europe and the U.S. and NATO would 
protect Western Europe, and has also sought integrated command 
and control of missile defense assets.
    The committee does not support either sectoral missile 
defense or integrated command and control of missile defense 
assets. The committee notes that the President has also 
rejected these proposals. In the December 18, 2010 letter to 
Senator McConnell cited above, the President also wrote, ``we 
have made clear [to Russia] that the system we intend to pursue 
with Russia will not be a joint system, and it will not in any 
way limit United States' or NATO's missile defense 
capabilities.'' The committee appreciates such clarification.
    Additionally, the committee is aware of proposals made by 
the United States to establish a missile defense data 
processing center that would synthesize U.S. and NATO sensor 
data with Russian sensor data to allow both sides to cue each 
other's missile defense interceptor systems. While the 
committee is open to such proposals, it is currently unclear 
exactly what data and technology would be shared, how they 
would be shared, and what equitable contributions would be made 
by Russia. The committee opposes any proposals that involve the 
transfer of sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and data. 
Furthermore, the committee expects to receive frequent updates 
on these proposals and presumes the Department of Defense will 
take measures necessary to protect U.S. missile defense 
technology and data.
    Lastly, the committee notes that the New Strategic Arms 
Reduction Treaty (New START) Resolution of Advice and Consent 
to Ratification as Amended (Treaty Doc. 111-5) stated that 
``Given its concern about missile defense issues, the Senate 
expects the executive branch to offer regular briefings . . . 
to the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services of 
the Senate on all missile defense issues related to the New 
START Treaty and on the progress of United States--Russia 
dialogue and cooperation regarding missile defense.'' In the 
spirit of bicameralism, the committee requests that the 
executive branch offer these same briefings to the House 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.

           U.S. Africa Command and the Lord's Resistance Army

    The committee remains concerned about the Lord's Resistance 
Army, its nearly two decade long reign of terror in northern 
Uganda and central Africa, its killing and brutalizing of 
civilians, and its continued destabilization of the region. The 
committee further notes that pursuant to the Lord's Resistance 
Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-172), it is the policy of the United States to 
work with regional governments toward a comprehensive and 
lasting resolution to the conflict in northern Uganda, 
including support of viable multilateral efforts to disarm and 
demobilize the Lord's Resistance Army. The committee encourages 
the vigorous implementation of the policy enumerated in Public 
Law 111-172 and recommends that Department of Defense provide 
U.S. Africa Command with any and all resources it requires in 
the execution of its efforts pursuant to this policy.

  Village Stability Operations and the Afghan Local Police Program in 
                              Afghanistan

    The committee is aware of an ongoing expansion of local 
security initiatives such as Village Stability Operations (VSO) 
and the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program, which are designed 
to empower local elders and marginalize the influence of the 
criminal and extremist insurgency. Under the leadership of the 
Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command--
Afghanistan (CFSOCC-A), these activities have grown in scope 
and scale, and are effectively empowering Afghans to stand up 
for themselves with close support from the Government of the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and coalition forces. To 
support VSO and ALP expansion, the committee is also aware that 
conventional U.S. infantry battalions have been assigned under 
the operational control of CFSOCC-A, which had heretofore been 
manned almost exclusively by Special Operations Forces. The 
committee is aware that U.S. Special Operations Command has 
responded to critical mission needs and emerging requirements 
in support of VSO and ALP and has realigned considerable Major 
Force Program (MFP)-11 resources, including communications 
equipment, vehicles, alternative energy technologies, and non-
standard aviation fixed-wing aircraft.
    While these programmatic shifts in MFP-11 funding appear 
warranted, the committee is concerned about an increased 
reliance upon Government contracts to provide security guards 
at forward operating bases and facilities in support of U.S. 
Special Operations Forces, and Afghan and Coalition Forces. The 
committee is also concerned that as the Department of Defense 
expands VSO and ALP activities, other U.S. Government agencies 
have been unable to contribute a comparable and concomitant 
expansion of civilian-led U.S. and Government of the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan development and governance initiatives 
and activities. Improper and inconsistent program expansion may 
jeopardize realized gains, encourage splinter and outlier 
activities not coordinated within the overall ALP strategy, and 
systemically further damage Government of the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan credibility if Government of the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and Coalition Forces are unable to 
deliver security, development, and governance at the district, 
provincial, and national level.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training


Section 1201--Expansion of Authority for Support of Special Operations 
                          to Combat Terrorism

    This section would increase the amount authorized for 
support of special operations to combat terrorism pursuant to 
section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 
Stat. 2086), as most recently amended by section 1201 of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4385), from $45 million to 
$50 million, extend the authority through fiscal year 2014, and 
direct the Department of Defense to provide an implementation 
strategy that outlines the future requirements that would 
require similar authority in preparation for pending authority 
expiration.

  Section 1202--Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces

    This section would extend, by 1 year, the authorities 
relating to programs to build the capacity of foreign military 
forces under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as most recently 
amended by section 1207(a) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). 
This section would increase the amount authorized from fiscal 
year 2011 by $50.0 million, for a total of $400.0 million in 
fiscal year 2012. This section would also increase the 
limitation on the amount for building capacity to participate 
in or support military and stability operations by $50.0 
million, for a total of $150.0 million in fiscal year 2013. 
This section would also add a new reporting requirement 
regarding implementation of the authority during the previous 
fiscal year. The President would be required to submit such a 
report to the congressional defense committees, the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs as part of the supporting materials 
accompanying the President's budget request, submitted pursuant 
to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.

Section 1203--Five-Year Extension of Authorization for Non-Conventional 
                     Assisted Recovery Capabilities

    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
continue to develop, manage, and execute a Non-Conventional 
Assisted Recovery personnel recovery program for isolated 
Department of Defense, U.S. Government, and other designated 
personnel supporting United States national interests globally. 
The initial authorization contained in section 943 of the 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) provided for funds for this 
program to be available through fiscal year 2011. This section 
would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds through 
fiscal year 2016.

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


Section 1211--Authority To Establish a Program To Develop and Carry Out 
                 Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan

    This section would extend for 1 year, through the end of 
fiscal year 2012, the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 
established under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383). The committee further recommends increasing the amount 
authorized under this provision to $475.0 million in order to 
undertake high-priority, large-scale infrastructure projects in 
support of the civil-military campaign in the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan.

  Section 1212--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan

    This section would authorize the use of operation and 
maintenance funds made available to the Department of Defense 
for fiscal year 2012 to provide funds for the Commanders' 
Emergency Response Program in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. This section would authorize $425.0 million for 
activities in fiscal year 2012, and would require the Secretary 
of Defense to provide quarterly reports to the congressional 
defense committees.
    The committee notes that this section does not authorize 
the use of the Commanders' Emergency Program in Iraq, as 
previously authorized by section 1202 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 106-163), as 
amended most recently by section 1212 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383). The remaining U.S. forces in the Republic of Iraq 
are operating in a strictly training and advisory capacity to 
Iraqi Security Force units. The committee believes that any 
immediate humanitarian needs such units encounter should be 
addressed through Iraqi funding sources.

   Section 1213--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain 
   Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military 
                               Operations

    This section would extend, by 1 year, section 1232 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), as most recently amended by section 1213 of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (Public Law 111-383). This section would authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation 
for: (a) logistical, military, and other support provided by 
that nation to or in connection with U.S. military operations 
in Operation Enduring Freedom; or (b) logistical and military 
support provided by that nation to confront the threat posed by 
Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremists in the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The total amount of 
reimbursements made under this authority during fiscal year 
2012 would not exceed $2.2 billion. The congressional 
notification and reporting requirements relating to 
reimbursement of Pakistan for support provided by Pakistan as 
required by section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by 
section 1213 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), would apply to 
Coalition Support Fund reimbursements authorized by this 
section.

Section 1214--Extension and Modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency 
                                  Fund

    This section would extend, by 1 year, section 1224(h) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84), as most recently amended by section 1220 
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), to provide assistance to 
the security forces of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to 
build and maintain those forces' counterinsurgency capability. 
This section would also withhold authority to obligate more 
than 25 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for 
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) until the Secretary of 
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, 
submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report on 
the strategy to utilize the fund, a discussion of the terrorist 
or extremist groups that the United States encourages Pakistan 
to combat, the gaps in capabilities of Pakistani security 
units, how assistance provided utilizing the fund will address 
these capability gaps, and metrics of progress. This section 
directs that future updates of the report be submitted 
concurrently with the President's budget request, and requires 
quarterly reporting on progress in achieving U.S. strategic 
objectives in Pakistan and progress made by programs supported 
by PCF.
    The committee feels that PCF remains a critical part of a 
comprehensive program to train and equip the Pakistani army and 
Pakistani Frontier Scouts to be able to conduct 
counterinsurgency operations in the Federally Administered 
Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The committee further notes 
that the Pakistani security forces have undertaken significant 
operations against some extremist organizations in the FATA, 
including at least one such organization that has attempted to 
launch an attack against the United States homeland. However, 
to date, the committee believes that Pakistan has lacked both 
the capability and political will to pursue and eliminate some 
well-armed and dangerous extremist groups that have attacked 
U.S. forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, such as the 
Haqqani Network. The committee believes that significantly 
enhancing the capabilities of Pakistan through PCF, if properly 
conceived and carried out, should make it easier for the 
government of Pakistan to make the hard decisions to combat 
these groups. However, some recent events, such as the public 
request to cease drone operations against terrorists in 
Pakistan's tribal areas and requests that the United States 
reduce the number of special forces trainers and intelligence 
operatives working in Pakistan, have caused the committee to 
question if the government of Pakistan will be able to make 
such a decision in the near future. The committee intends the 
report required by this section to address such questions in 
order to determine on an on-going basis, the value of such 
assistance in promoting security in Pakistan, consistent with 
the interests of the United States.

   Section 1215--Report on Extension of United States-Iraq Status of 
                            Forces Agreement

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the congressional defense committees with formal 
notification if the U.S. Government and the Government of the 
Republic of Iraq complete an agreement permitting the United 
States to maintain a force presence in Iraq above that 
envisioned for the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I). 
This section would require that in the absence of such an 
agreement in place by December 31, 2011, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by January 31, 2012, outlining how Department of 
Defense participation in OSC-I programs will address the 
capability gaps of the Iraqi Security Forces, should the 
Government of Iraq request such assistance. This section would 
also require the Secretary to submit an update to such a report 
concurrent with the submission of the President's budget 
requests for fiscal years 2014-15, submitted to Congress 
pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
unless such an agreement is reached. The committee intends for 
these updates to cover Department of Defense OSC-I efforts for 
calendar year 2012 and 2013, respectively.

  Section 1216--Authority to Support Operations and Activities of the 
                 Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
utilize funds available for operations and maintenance by the 
Air Force to support operations and activities of the Office of 
Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). This section would fund 
the life support, transportation, and personal security of 
Department of Defense personnel in OSC-I. This section would 
not authorize funding to pay the salaries and expenses of 
personnel of the Department of State.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters


Section 1221--Review and Report on Iran's and China's Conventional and 
                        Anti-Access Capabilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense not 
later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a classified 
study undertaken by an independent entity outside the 
Department of Defense assessing the gaps between the 
conventional and anti-access capabilities of the Islamic 
Republic of Iran and the People's Republic of China and the 
U.S. forces' ability to overcome such capabilities. The 
committee notes that sections 1238 and 1243 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) required a report and a briefing from the 
Department of Defense on these subjects. However, given the 
potentially grave threats posed by these capabilities to U.S. 
national security and stability in the western Pacific and 
Middle East, the committee believes an additional, independent 
assessment is warranted to further inform the Department's 
planning and the committee's oversight of these issues. The 
committee encourages the Secretary to select an entity with the 
necessary security clearances and expertise to review the 
intelligence assessments upon which the Department's findings 
were based pursuant to the report and briefing required by 
sections 1238 and 1243.

   Section 1222--Report and Consultation on Energy Security of NATO 
                                Alliance

    This section would express certain findings related to 
energy security for members of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) and would require the Secretary of Defense 
to direct a federally funded research and development center of 
the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of the 
energy security of the NATO alliance, with an emphasis on the 
vulnerabilities of NATO alliance members to a sole supplier or 
distribution network for oil or gas, and how such 
vulnerabilities could adversely affect the security and 
cohesion of the alliance. This section would further require 
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to submit a report of such assessment not later than 270 
days after the date of enactment of this Act. This section 
would further direct the Secretary of Defense to consult with 
other NATO member countries and NATO's Emerging Security 
Challenges Division on other ways the United States as a NATO 
member country could contribute to the energy security of the 
NATO alliance and NATO regional partners.

   Section 1223--Extension of Report on Progress Toward Security and 
                        Stability in Afghanistan

    This section would extend the ``Report on Progress Toward 
Stability and Security in Afghanistan,'' as required by section 
1230(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended by 
section 1231 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).

 Section 1224--Report on Military and Security Developments Involving 
               the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not 
later than March 1, 2012 and March 1, 2013 to submit, in both 
classified and unclassified form, a report on the current and 
future military power of the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea. This section would require the report be submitted to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and 
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

 Section 1225--National Security Risk Assessment of the United States 
          Federal Debt Owned by the People's Republic of China

    This section would require, within 30 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) to determine and make publicly available 
the amount of accrued interest on United States Federal debt 
paid to the People's Republic of China during the five years 
preceding the date of enactment of this Act. This section would 
further require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the Director of National Intelligence, to carry out an 
assessment of the national security risks posed to the United 
States and United States allies as a result of the Federal debt 
liabilities owed to China and the amount of interest determined 
to have been paid by the United States to China. This section 
would require the Secretary to submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs within 120 days following the date 
of enactment of this Act.

 Section 1226--Congressional Notification Requirement before Permanent 
  Relocation of Any United States Military Unit Stationed Outside the 
                             United States

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by 
inserting a new section 162a, that would require the Secretary 
of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days before the 
relocation of a unit stationed outside the United States. 
Elements of the notification would include how the action 
supports the national security strategy, commitments undertaken 
by international security treaties, a combatant commander's 
area of responsibility, the cost differential between 
relocation and rotation to maintain the same capabilities, and 
how such relocation would affect overseas Base Realignment and 
Closure activities. This section would also waive the 
notification requirement for relocation of a unit to a 
contingency operation, for relocation as a result of a closure 
of an overseas installation at the request of the government of 
the host nation, or for the planned reduction of brigade combat 
teams within the European command area of operations from four 
to three. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit 
the ability of the Secretary of Defense to relocate military 
units stationed outside the United States.

Section 1227--Annual Report on Military Power of the People's Republic 
                                of China

    This section would amend section 1202 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65), as most recently amended by section 1246(b) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84), by changing the name of the annual report required 
by such section from ``Annual Report on Military and Security 
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China'' to 
``Annual Report on Military Power of the People's Republic of 
China''. This section would also clarify the reporting 
requirements relating to China's cyber and espionage 
activities.

  Section 1228--Limitation on Funds to Provide the Russian Federation 
        with Access to United States Missile Defense Technology

    This section would establish two limitations on funds made 
available in this Act to provide the Russian Federation with 
access to the missile defense technology and data of the United 
States. The first limitation would limit funds from being used 
to provide the Russian Federation with access to sensitive U.S. 
missile defense technology or sensitive data. The second 
limitation would limit funds from being used to provide the 
Russian Federation with access, more generally, to U.S. missile 
defense technology or data as part of a defense technical 
cooperative agreement unless the President submits a report and 
certification to certain committees.

   Section 1229--International Agreements Relating to Missile Defense

    This section includes several findings related to 
unilateral statements made concerning the New Strategic Arms 
Reduction Treaty (New START), and several of the understandings 
and declarations in the Senate's Resolution of Ratification for 
that treaty, related to United States legal obligations and 
U.S. national interests with respect to limiting, restricting, 
and improving the missile defense capabilities of the United 
States. This section further includes several policy statements 
concerning further limitations on and improvements to the U.S. 
missile defense capabilities, and with respect to future 
agreements restricting those capabilities.
    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
state that, in accordance with the Senate's Resolution of 
Ratification of the New START Treaty, any agreement with a 
country or international organization or amendment to the New 
START Treaty (including an agreement made by the Bilateral 
Consultative Commission established by the treaty) concerning 
the limitation of U.S. missile defense capabilities shall not 
be binding on the United States, and shall not enter into force 
with respect to the United States, unless after the date of the 
enactment of this section, such agreement or amendment is 
specifically approved with the advice and consent of the Senate 
pursuant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the 
Constitution; or specifically authorized by an Act of Congress.
    This section would further require the President to submit 
to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee 
on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs an annual notification whether the Russian Federation 
has recognized during the previous year the sovereign right of 
the United States to pursue quantitative and qualitative 
improvements in missile defense capabilities; and furthermore 
whether during any treaty negotiations or other Government-to-
Government contacts between the United States and the Russian 
Federation during the previous year a representative of the 
Russian Federation suggested that a treaty or other 
international agreement include, with respect to the United 
States, restricting missile defense capabilities, military 
capabilities in space, or conventional prompt global strike 
capabilities, or reducing the number of non-strategic nuclear 
weapons deployed in Europe.

  Section 1230--Non-strategic Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Extended 
                           Deterrence Policy

    This section would express certain policy statements of the 
United States on Russian and United States non-strategic 
nuclear weapon reductions and extended deterrence commitments 
to Europe.
    This section would further prohibit any action from being 
taken to effect or implement the reduction, consolidation, or 
withdrawal of nuclear forces of the United States that are 
based in Europe unless either 1) the reduction, consolidation, 
or withdrawal of such nuclear forces is requested by the 
government of the host nation in the manner provided in the 
agreement between the United States and the host nation 
regarding the forces; or 2) the President certifies that NATO 
member states have considered the reduction, consolidation, or 
withdrawal at the High Level Group, that NATO has decided to 
support such reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal, and that 
the remaining nuclear forces of the United States that are 
based in Europe after such reduction, consolidation or 
withdrawal would provide a commensurate or better level of 
assurance and credibility as before such reduction, 
consolidation, or withdrawal.
    This section would further require that upon any decision 
to reduce, consolidate, or withdraw nuclear forces of the 
United States from Europe, the President to submit to certain 
congressional committees a notification that the above 
referenced certification has been made, a justification for 
such reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal, and an assessment 
of how NATO member states, in light of such action, assess the 
credibility of the deterrence capability of the United States 
in support of its commitments under article f of the North 
Atlantic Treaty of 1949.
    This section would further require the expiration of a 180 
day period beginning on the date that the President makes the 
above referenced certification, before the President may 
commence a reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal of the 
nuclear forces of the United States that are based in Europe.

                TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for the Department of Defense 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $508.2 
million for fiscal year 2012, representing a decrease of $14.23 
million from the amount requested and authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2011. Since the submission of the 
fiscal year 2011 request, several of the CTR accounts have been 
reorganized. The request for fiscal year 2012 included $63.2 
million for Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination, $9.8 million 
for Chemical Weapons Destruction, $121.1 million for Global 
Nuclear Security, $259.5 million for Cooperative Biological 
Engagement, $28.1 million for Proliferation Prevention, $2.5 
million for Threat Reduction Engagement, and $24.0 million for 
Other Assessments/Administrative support.
    The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR 
program and continues to believe that the program is critical 
to United States national security. In past years, the 
committee has expressed concern that a lack of effective policy 
guidance and leadership, as well as programmatic and funding 
constraints, have sometimes limited progress of the CTR 
Program. The committee notes, however, that the CTR program has 
made significant achievements, and that much threat reduction 
work remains to be done.
    Recent national defense authorization acts addressed these 
concerns by: repealing limitations on the use of CTR funds; 
expanding CTR authority outside the former Soviet Union; 
increasing CTR funding, including funding for new CTR 
initiatives; requiring reports by the National Academy of 
Sciences and the Secretary of Defense on the development of new 
CTR initiatives and metrics; requiring a report by the 
Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to complete the chemical 
weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation at 
Schuch'ye; requiring increased reporting from the Secretary of 
Defense on CTR defense and military contacts; providing CTR 
programs with authority for urgent threat reduction activities; 
authorizing the CTR program to accept international 
contributions; and ensuring that the CTR program addresses 
threats involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and 
weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise.
    The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological 
Engagement Program (CBEP), formerly called the Biological 
Threat Reduction Program (BTRP), now encompasses over one half 
of the CTR budget request. The committee reaffirms its view, 
stated in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
that biological threat reduction and engagement ``should be 
guided by a comprehensive long-term interagency engagement and 
coordination; rigorous Department management and oversight; 
coordination and integration with other Department programs and 
activities; and concrete metrics for measuring progress.'' The 
committee further reaffirms its view that the CTR program as a 
whole should ``maintain a strong focus'' on the full range of 
threat reduction challenges. The committee further reaffirms 
its view that concrete metrics remain important for measuring 
the impact and effectiveness of all CTR activities. The 
committee welcomes efforts by the Department of Defense to 
actively consult with the committee and keep the committee 
fully informed of efforts and developments in these areas.
    Section 1303 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
2010 (Public Law 111-84) placed a limitation on the use of 
funds for establishing centers of excellence in countries 
outside the former U.S.S.R. Section 1304 of the same Act 
required the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy 
to jointly submit a plan, not later than April 1, 2011, on 
carrying out CTR program activities planned in the People's 
Republic of China. The committee notes that this report was not 
submitted on time. The committee continues to remain deeply 
interested in the CTR program activities taking place outside 
of the former U.S.S.R., and in particular those activities in 
the People's Republic of China. The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to ensure 
that reports are submitted on time, to continue to actively 
consult with the committee, and to keep the committee fully 
informed of developments and CTR program activities involving 
the People's Republic of China.
    Finally, the committee believes that the phrases 
``military-to-military and defense contacts'' and ``defense and 
military contacts'' as used in section 1501(b)(4) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, as 
amended, and subsequent relevant legislation, includes defense 
and military contacts that are used to support participation by 
foreign non-defense departments and agencies, international 
organizations, and non-governmental organizations in activities 
that support the CTR mission.
    The committee authorizes $508.2 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


      Cooperative Threat Reduction Biological Surveillance Network

    The committee is concerned that the proposed biological 
surveillance network within the Cooperative Biological 
Engagement Program (CBEP) could prove insufficient to monitor, 
detect, and deter manmade pathogens, even if implemented 
widely. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
assess whether the biological surveillance network would fall 
short of addressing the global biological threat. The 
assessment should examine the potential for dangerous pathogens 
to be weaponized: (1) by relatively unsophisticated non-state 
actors, including terrorists, (2) by state or non-state actors 
in countries that do not fully cooperate with such a network, 
or (3) by rogue state or sub-state actors who, with modest 
biological knowledge and equipment, might be able to circumvent 
such a network even in countries that would participate in such 
a network. The Secretary should consult with the intelligence 
community in the conduct of such an assessment. The Secretary 
is further directed to submit a report to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, House 
Committee on Armed Services, and House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, on any necessary recommendations regarding the 
modification of the CBEP mission, in unclassified form with a 
classified annex, as necessary, within 150 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

           Cooperative Threat Reduction of Biological Weapons

    The committee has long expressed support for reducing the 
threats from biological weapons and the proliferation of 
dangerous pathogens. However, the committee has also expressed 
concern regarding measures of effectiveness of Cooperative 
Threat Reduction (CTR) activities. Section 1304 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement 
metrics to measure the impact and effectiveness of all CTR 
activities. The ``Report on Metrics for the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program'' referred to here as the CTR Metrics Report, 
was completed in September 2010.
    The committee also notes that the CTR biological program 
has recently undergone a name change, from the Biological 
Threat Reduction Program to the Cooperative Biological 
Engagement Program, and appears to be transforming from the 
site-specific and arms control threat reduction paradigms to a 
new global effects paradigm, characterized by engagement and 
capacity building. Additionally, budget requests for biological 
threat-related CTR activities have gradually increased and now 
represent more than half of the program request.
    The committee is concerned that this reorientation could 
both impair CTR's traditional focus on threat reduction and 
complicate program assessment. To the extent that the 
biological engagement monitors naturally occurring diseases, it 
may become more difficult for Congress to monitor CTR's 
continued focus on threats that are directly related to weapons 
of mass destruction. Despite the Biological and Toxic Weapons 
Convention (BWC), there is no shortage of biological weapons 
material and facilities. For example, as noted in the 2005 
Department of State report, ``Adherence to and Compliance With 
Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and 
Commitments,'' the ``United States judges, based on available 
evidence, that Russia continues to maintain an offensive 
program in violation of the BWC.'' The committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to continue its efforts to attempt to 
gain access to such sites. While there is a hope that 
engagement could facilitate the attainment of this goal, it is 
not clear that additional spending on engagement would persuade 
an uncooperative country from opening or even admitting the 
existence of such facilities. The CTR Metrics Report notes, 
``we need better measures to show that these efforts actually 
result in changed practices or additional effectiveness.'' 
Indeed, the CTR Metrics Report further acknowledges that the 
metrics do not attempt to ``determine whether the activities of 
the CTR program are the `right' activities.''
    The committee believes that engagement dollars must yield 
verifiable results and must result in threat reduction. 
Therefore, elsewhere in this title the committee includes a 
provision that would limit the funds available for CBEP until 
the Secretary certifies that biological engagement efforts do 
actually result in changed practices or additional 
effectiveness, and that the program leads to a reduction in the 
threat from biological weapons, bioterrorism, and pathogen 
proliferation.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 
                               and Funds

    This section would define the programs and funds that are 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds as those 
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and 
specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation 
for 3 fiscal years.

                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations

    This section would allocate specific amounts for each 
program element under the Department of Defense Cooperative 
Threat Reduction (CTR) Program from within the overall $508.2 
million that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. 
The allocation under this section reflects the amount of the 
budget request for fiscal year 2012. This section would also 
require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary 
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2012 funds for 
purposes other than those specifically authorized. In addition, 
this section would provide limited authority to obligate 
amounts for a program element under the CTR program in excess 
of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose.

   Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative 
                     Biological Engagement Program

    This section would limit funds that may be obligated or 
expended for fiscal year 2012 for the cooperative biological 
engagement program (CBEP) to not more than 75 percent of the 
amounts authorized or otherwise available for such purpose, 
until the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits 
certain information to the appropriate congressional 
committees. The Secretary would be required to submit a 
detailed analysis of the effectiveness of CBEP, and either 
written certification that CBEP results in changed practices 
and threat reduction, or a detailed list of policy and program 
recommendations considered by the Secretary to be necessary to 
modify, expand, or curtail CBEP. This section would require the 
Secretary to submit the report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House 
Committee on Armed Services, and the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.

                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Military Programs


                  Section 1401--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize appropriations for Defense 
Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 
of division D of this Act.

              Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund

    This section would authorize appropriations for the 
National Defense Sealift Fund at the level identified in 
section 4501 of division D of this Act.

    Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

    This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the level 
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

 Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
                                  Wide

    This section would authorize appropriations for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the 
level identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

                Section 1405--Defense Inspector General

    This section would authorize appropriations for the Office 
of the Inspector General at the level identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.

                  Section 1406--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense 
Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of 
division D of this Act.

                 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile


   Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds

    This section would authorize $50.1 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund for the operation 
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal 
year 2012. This section would also permit the use of additional 
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after 
Congress receives notification.

 Section 1412--Revision to Required Receipt Objectives for Previously 
        Authorized Disposals from the National Defense Stockpile

    This section would authorize revisions on limitations in 
asset sales contained in section 3402(b)(5) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) as most recently amended by section 1412 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) to increase the Department of Defense's stockpile 
commodity disposal authority from $730.0 million to $830.0 
million, and extend this authority from 2013 to 2016.

             Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters


   Section 1421--Changes to Management Organization to the Assembled 
                  Chemical Weapons Alternative Program

    This section would allow the Assembled Chemical Weapons 
Alternative Program (ACWA) to work closely with the U.S. Army 
Chemical Materials Agency (CMA). The committee believes that 
CMAs leadership, engineers, scientists, project managers, 
technical managers, and safety technicians represent a pool of 
talent and experience that can and should be leveraged as CMA 
begins to draw down upon the completion of its mission to help 
address and anticipate risks and help to underwrite future 
success of ACWA.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


    Section 1431--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces 
                            Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $67.7 million to be 
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home during fiscal year 2012.

 Section 1432--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of 
 Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
     Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer funds from the Defense Health Program to the Joint 
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Facility Demonstration Fund created by section 1704 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84).

         Section 1433--Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund

    This section would establish a fund to be known as the 
``Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund''. Funds would be 
authorized to be appropriated for the fund for fiscal year 2012 
as specified in the funding table in section 4501 of this Act. 
The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to transfer 
amounts from the fund to another account of the Department of 
Defense to mitigate unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2012 
for any of the following: (1) ballistic and cruise missile 
defense; (2) Navy shipbuilding; (3) strike fighter shortfalls; 
(4) mine warfare; (5) intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance; (6) capabilities to defeat anti-access/area 
denial technologies; and (7) basic research. The authority 
provided to the Secretary of Defense to transfer amounts from 
the fund to other accounts would be in addition to any other 
authority provided to the Secretary to transfer funds provided 
in this Act. This section would specify that the transfer of an 
amount from the fund to another Department of Defense account 
would be deemed an increase to the amount authorized to be 
appropriated for such account. This section would also prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from transferring amounts from the 
fund until the date that is 15 days after the date on which the 
Secretary notifies the congressional defense committees in 
writing of the details of the proposed transfer. Finally, the 
Secretary of Defense would be required to issue guidance, 
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
regarding the identification and selection of projects to be 
funded under this section using merit-based selection criteria.

   TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
                         CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for 
each fiscal year to include:
          (1) A request for the appropriation of funds for 
        ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 
        Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
          (2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required 
        in that fiscal year for operations; and
          (3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to 
be available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas 
contingency operations principally associated with Operation 
New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                 CV-22 Combat Loss Replacement Funding

    The budget request contained $15 million for combat loss 
replacement funding and Special Operations Forces peculiar 
modifications for one CV-22 for a total of $15.0 million.
    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2011 
appropriations included funding for this combat loss 
replacement.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $15.0 
million, for combat loss replacement funding and Special 
Operations Forces peculiar modifications.

                  Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
contained $100.0 million for the Joint Urgent Operational Needs 
(JUON) Fund.
    The committee understands this fund would be used to 
address unknown operational needs in Operation New Dawn and 
Operation Enduring Freedom. However, the committee believes 
that this request lacks proper justification and is duplicative 
with other requests for rapid acquisition capabilities to 
address urgent operational needs. The committee is aware the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified 31 
entities within the Department of Defense, the military 
services, and U.S. Special Operations Command whose mission is 
to respond to urgent operational needs from combat theaters of 
operation that all have separate budgets that could be used to 
develop, equip, and field solutions to the warfighter. For 
example, the committee notes the total budget request contained 
$2.8 billion for the Joint IED Defeat Organization, $191.4 
million for the Rapid Equipping Force, and $334.4 million for 
the Rapid Fielding Directorate.
    The committee also notes that Congress provided the 
Department with Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA) in section 
806(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), as amended by section 
811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) and section 803 of 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) which provides the Secretary of 
Defense $200.0 million in authority, per fiscal year, to waive 
any necessary statutes for quick response to immediate 
warfighter capability requirements in response to combat 
fatalities. The committee understands the Department has rarely 
used this authority.
    According to GAO, the Department of Defense lacks complete 
visibility to readily identify the total cost of its urgent 
operational needs and lacks the internal controls necessary to 
manage these efforts. For instance, the Department has no 
comprehensive database for which to track, monitor, and 
evaluate urgent operational requests and no set of universal 
metrics to effectively evaluate its performance once the system 
is fielded. The committee also understands the Secretary of 
Defense has not issued Department-wide policy guidance that 
provides for a unified approach for managing quick reaction 
programs and urgent need efforts to include managing funding 
requirements. Given the current budgetary challenges, the 
committee believes it is critical for the Department to 
reevaluate its current processes for fulfilling its urgent 
needs and determine whether there is potential to reduce 
duplication, fragmentation, and overlap to achieve increased 
efficiencies, cost savings, or both.
    Section 804 of Public Law 111-383 requires the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department's 
urgent operational needs and rapid acquisition process and 
report the findings to the congressional defense committees by 
January 2012. The committee believes that the Department should 
complete this required comprehensive evaluation of its urgent 
operational needs processes before requesting approval for a 
separate funding account. The committee also encourages the 
Secretary to utilize RAA to address urgent operational needs.
    The committee recommends $50.0 million, a decrease of $50.0 
million, for the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund within the 
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Elsewhere in 
title 1 of this Act, the committee recommends no funds, a 
decrease of $100.0 million, for the JUON Fund.

                 MH-60 Combat Loss Replacement Funding

    The budget request contained $7.8 million for combat loss 
replacement funding and Special Operations Forces peculiar 
modifications for one MH-60 for a total of $7.8 million.
    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2011 
appropriations included funding for this combat loss 
replacement.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $7.8 
million, for combat loss replacement funding and Special 
Operations Forces peculiar modifications.

          National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund

    The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations 
contained $280.0 million for National Guard and Reserve 
equipment.
    The committee notes the specific amount of resources, 
including equipment, needed to achieve the National Guard and 
Reserve Component's new operational reserve status remains a 
challenge, given the dual mission responsibility of the 
National Guard and Reserve Components, in particular the 
National Guard. The committee understands that despite recent 
increases in equipment funding levels that equipment shortfalls 
still exist for the National Guard and Reserve Components. The 
committee believes additional funds would help eliminate 
identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-use 
equipment. The committee expects these funds to be used for the 
purposes of, but not limited to the procurement of: aircraft, 
missiles, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, tactical wheeled 
vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios, non-system 
training devices, logistics automation systems, remote weapon 
stations, chemical/biological protective shelters, and other 
critical dual-use procurement items for the National Guard and 
Reserve Components. The committee understands the National 
Guard is also in the process of upgrading central pedestal 
displays for their F-16 block 30 aircraft and recommends the 
National Guard examine the viability of utilizing a similar 
upgrade program for F-16 block 40 and 50 aircraft.
    The committee recommends $505.0 million, an increase of 
$225.0 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment within 
the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. Elsewhere 
in title 1 of this Act, the committee recommends $4.8 billion, 
an increase of $100.0 million, for National Guard and Reserve 
equipment.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations


                         Section 1501--Purpose

    This section would establish this title and make 
authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of 
this Act for the Department of Defense, in additional to 
amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for 
additional costs due to overseas contingency operations.

                       Section 1502--Procurement

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of 
division D of this Act.

       Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels 
identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act.

                Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
operation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in 
section 4302 of division D of this Act.

                    Section 1505--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of 
division D of this Act.

                  Section 1506--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in 
section 4502 of division D of this Act.

                  Section 1507--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 
4502 of division D of this Act.

 Section 1508--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
                                  wide

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide at 
the level identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act.

                Section 1509--Defense Inspector General

    This section would authorize additional appropriations for 
the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in 
section 4502 of division D of this Act.

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters


          Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations

    This section would state that amounts authorized to be 
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.

                Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority

    This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.0 
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in 
this title among the accounts in this title.

               Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters


             Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

    This section would extend, by 1 year, the conditions and 
limitations on funds made available to the Department of 
Defense for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) 
pursuant to section 1513 of the National Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as most recently amended 
by section 1531 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
    The committee believes that improving the capabilities of 
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the capacity of the 
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's security-
related ministries is vital to achieving the stated goal of 
transitioning responsibility for security in Afghanistan by 
2014. Consequently, the committee authorizes the Department of 
Defense to utilize amounts in the ASFF to construct and operate 
schools for the purpose of providing literacy instruction to 
recruits for the ANSF and to civilians entering the Afghan 
Ministry of Defense.

Section 1532--Continuation of Prohibition on Use of United States Funds 
                for Certain Facilities Projects in Iraq

    This section would apply the prohibitions of section 
1508(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to funds authorized 
to this title, to prohibit the acquisition, conversion, 
rehabilitation, or installation of facilities for use by the 
Government of the Republic of Iraq, its subdivisions, agencies, 
departments, or forces, as well as the political subdivisions 
of Iraq.

   Section 1533--One-Year Extension of Project Authority and Related 
  Requirements of Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would extend by 1 year the project authority 
and related requirements of the Task Force for Business and 
Stability Operations (TFBSO) in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan under section 1535 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) and provide $75.0 million for such purposes.
    The committee notes that it has still not received the plan 
required by section 1545 of Public Law 111-383 Act to 
transition the activities of the Task Force to the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID). The 
committee notes that the function of private sector business 
development falls outside the core competency of the Department 
of Defense. Therefore, the committee believes that the mission 
of TFBSO should eventually fall under the jurisdiction of a 
different agency, likely USAID or possibly the Department of 
Commerce. However, the committee notes that the USAID does not 
appear ready to assume responsibility for the TFBSO by the time 
the previous authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 
2011. The committee understands that developing Afghanistan's 
private business sector is critical to reviving that nation's 
economy. Therefore, the committee has provided the authority to 
extend the TFBSO through fiscal year 2012 in order to support 
the International Security Assistance Force's comprehensive 
counterinsurgency strategy to achieve our strategic objectives 
in Afghanistan.

                   TITLE XVI--ADDITIONAL BUDGET ITEMS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                        Subtitle A--Procurement


  Section 1601--Budget Item Relating to Modification of Torpedoes and 
                           Related Equipment

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Weapons Procurement, 
Navy, for the modification of torpedoes and related equipment, 
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

Section 1602--Budget Item Relating to Anti-Submarine Warfare Electronic 
                               Equipment

    This section would add $9,600,000 to Other Procurement, 
Navy, for anti-submarine warfare electronic equipment, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1603--Budget Item Relating to Shallow Water Mine Counter 
                                Measures

    This section would add $8,000,000 to Other Procurement, 
Navy for shallow water mine countermeasures or expended based 
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

        Section 1604--Budget Item Relating to LHA-7 Ship Program

    This section would add $150,000,000 to Shipbuilding and 
Conversion, Navy for the LHA-7 ship program or expended based 
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

   Section 1605--Budget Item Relating to Mobility Aircraft Simulators

    This section would add $25,000,000 to Aircraft Procurement, 
Air Force line 105 for mobility aircraft simulators, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1606--Budget Item Relating to Modifications to Aircraft

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Aircraft Procurement, 
Army Line 027 for radio communication systems for National 
Guard helicopters, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

    Section 1607--Budget Item Relating to SH-60 Crew and Passenger 
                         Survivability Upgrades

    This section would add $4.5 million to Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy, Line 036 for SH-60 crew and survivability 
upgrades to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1608--Budget Item Relating to Modification of In Service A-10 
                                Aircraft

    This section would add $5.0 million to Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force, Line 038, for A-10 lightweight airborne 
recovery systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based 
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

          Section 1609--Budget Item Relating to Radar Support

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Other Procurement, 
Navy, for radar support, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 1610--Budget Item Relating to Electronic Equipment-Automation

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Other Procurement, 
Army, for electronic equipment-automation for support of the 
deployment and adoption of new information processing systems, 
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

       Section 1611--Budget Item Relating to Base Defense Systems

    This section would add $6.0 million to Other Procurement, 
Army, Line 130 for base defense system equipment, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1612--Budget Item Relating to Sniper Rifle Modifications

    This section would add $2.5 million to the Procurement of 
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, Budget Activity 002 
for modifications of weapons and other combat vehicles, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1613--Budget Item Relating to Generators and Associated 
                               Equipment

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Other Procurement, 
Army, Line 177 for generators and associated equipment to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1614--Budget Item Relating to National Guard and Reserve 
                               Equipment

    This section would add $100,000,000 to Procurement, 
National Guard and Reserve Equipment, line 007, and reduce the 
amount for Aircraft Procurement, Army, line 003, for Aerial 
Common Sensor, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

        Subtitle B--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


          Section 1616--Budget Item Relating to New Design SSN

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy line 113 for continued 
design improvements for new SSNs to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

    Section 1617--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Submarine System 
                              Development

    This section would add $9,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy line 42 for advanced submarine system 
development, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

  Section 1618--Budget Item Relating to Surface Anti-Submarine Warfare

    This section would add $3,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy for surface anti-submarine warfare, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

   Section 1619--Budget Item Relating to Ship Preliminary Design and 
                          Feasibility Studies

    This section would add $19,900,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy for ship preliminary 
design and feasibility studies, or expended based on merit-
based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

     Section 1620--Budget Item Relating to Industrial Preparedness

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy line 226 for industrial preparedness, 
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

     Section 1621--Budget Item Relating to Mixed Conventional Load 
                     Capability for Bomber Aircraft

    This section would add $20,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force line 122 for the 
development of mixed conventional load capability for bomber 
aircraft to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1622--Budget Item Relating to TACAIR-launched UAS Capability 
                              Development

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy line 209 for TACAIR-
launched UAS capability development, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1623--Budget Item Relating to Electro-photonic Component 
                         Capability Development

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation line 186 for electro-photonic 
component capability development, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 1624--Budget Item Relating to Airborne Reconnaissance Systems

    This section would increase Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation line 201 by $3.0 million for airborne reconnaissance 
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1625--Budget Item Relating to Small Business Innovative 
                                Research

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 139 to accelerate the use of 
technologies from the small business innovative research 
program into Army acquisition programs of record, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1626--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research Sciences

    This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 003 to conduct research into the 
magnetic and electric fields of the coastal ocean environment, 
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1627--Budget Item Relating to Defense Research Sciences

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 002 to support research into 
innovative new techniques combat wound repair, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

     Section 1628--Budget Item Relating to Communications Advanced 
                               Technology

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 034 for the development of 
communications and information networking technologies to 
support Army requirements, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

     Section 1629--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Technology

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 019 to develop radio frequency 
signals intelligence processing equipment and associated 
applications, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

     Section 1630--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Technology

    This section would add $8,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 019 for the development of 
enhanced low-light level visual sensors for persistent 
surveillance and dismounted soldier applications, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1631--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced Technology

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 050 for the development of 
deployable force protection sensors, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1632--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 050 for the development and 
fielding of a solution for helicopter ``brownout'' situational 
awareness, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1633--Budget Item Relating to Night Vision Advanced Technology

    This section would add $4.8 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 050 for night 
vision advanced technology development, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

       Section 1634--Budget Item Relating to Rotary Wing Surfaces

    This section would add $6,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 025 for the development of 
mission planning and support tools for rotary wing surfaces, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1635--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions Technology

    This section would add $30,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Line 017 for the 
development of weapons and munitions technologies by small and 
non-traditional defense businesses, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 1636--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions Advanced 
                               Technology

    This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 032 for development of 
innovative manufacturing techniques and processes for munitions 
and weapons systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

 Section 1637--Budget Item Relating to Weapons and Munitions Advanced 
                               Technology

    This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 032 for the development of 
innovative manufacturing techniques and processes for munitions 
and weapons systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

       Section 1638--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 005 to develop innovative 
nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing processes for warfighter 
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

       Section 1639--Budget Item Relating to Materials Technology

    This section would add $1,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 005 for the development and 
demonstration of novel lightweight composite packaging and 
structural materials, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

       Section 1640--Budgetary Amendment for Materials Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 005 for advanced manufacturing, 
repair and sustainment technologies for defense needs, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

      Section 1641--Budgetary Amendment for Lightweight Body Armor

    This section would add $5,100,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 016 for the development of new 
lightweight body armor, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

 Section 1642--Budgetary Amendment Relating to Industrial Preparedness 
                        Manufacturing Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense Wide, Line 248 for sustainment of 
the body armor industrial base, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

     Section 1643--Budgetary Amendment for Secure Microelectronics

    This section would add $15,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 050 to 
conduct research into the development, identification and 
management of secure microelectronics, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

Section 1644--Budget Item Relating to Army Tactical Command and Control 
                         Hardware and Software

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 115 for the development of 
interoperable national security information sharing systems, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

Section 1645--Budget Item Relating to Battlespace Knowledge Development 
                           and Demonstration

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 026 to conduct research and 
educational programs that support cyber workforce development, 
to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

       Section 1646--Budget Item Relating to Technology Transfer

    This section would add $9,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 045 for small business 
technology transfer efforts into major Department of Defense 
acquisition programs of record, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 1647--Budget Item Relating to University Research Initiatives

    This section would add $7,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 003 for multidisciplinary 
research into nanotechnology science, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1648--Budget Item Relating to University Research Initiatives

    This section would add $7,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 002 for the development 
hypersonic testing facilities for defense applications, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1649--Budget Item Relating to Clinical Care and Research

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 003 for development of 
informatics tools to support clinical care and research, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

        Section 1650--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 028 for the development of 
biomaterials for wound prevention and healing, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

        Section 1651--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 028 for research in spinal cord 
injuries, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

        Section 1652--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology

    This section would add $3,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 028 for the development of 
high-throughput, microarray diagnostic systems, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

        Section 1653--Budget Item Relating to Medical Technology

    This section would add $1,468,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 028 to support research into 
innovative new techniques to develop vaccines of interest to 
the military, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1654--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 030 for functional 
genomics research, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

   Section 1655--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 030 for the development of 
telemedicine technologies, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

   Section 1656--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 030 for the study of health 
effects from manganese and other potential toxins, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1657--Budget Item Relating to Medical Advanced Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 030 for the development of 
innovative medical training technologies, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1658--Budget Item Relating to Chemical and Biological Defense 
                                Program

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 017 for chemical and 
biological defense program applied research, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1659--Budget Item Relating to Special Operations Advanced 
                         Technology Development

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 074 for special 
operations advanced technology development, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1660--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology 
                                Support

    This section would add $3,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating 
terrorism technology support and risk assessment, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1661--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology 
                                Support

    This section would add $1,200,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating 
terrorism technology support and the development of mobile 
training content, to be committed, obligated, or expended based 
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

 Section 1662--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology 
                                Support

    This section would add $6,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating 
terrorism technology support, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 1663--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology 
                                Support

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 029 for the development 
of modeling and simulation technologies for testing of blast 
structures, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

  Section 1664--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 029 for combating 
terrorism technology support, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

  Section 1665--Budget Item Relating to Combating Terrorism Technology

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 029 for combating 
terrorism technology support to improve the collaborative 
experimentation model, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

   Section 1666--Budget Item Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction 
                          Defeat Technologies

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 024 for weapons of mass 
destruction defeat technologies, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

       Section 1667--Budget Item Relating to Countermine Systems

    This section would add $4,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 020 for countermine systems, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1668--Budget Item Relating to Mine and Expeditionary Warfare 
                            Applied Research

    This section would add $8,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 014 for the development of 
remote- robotic naval mine countermeasure research and 
development capability, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

    Section 1669--Budget Item Relating to Special Applications for 
                             Contingencies

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 217 for special 
operations advanced technology development, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1670--Budget Item Relating to Microelectronics Technology 
                        Development and Support

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Line 053 for the development 
of innovative semiconductor design and fabrication tools, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1671--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter Sustainment Applied 
                                Research

    This section would add $2,500,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 009 to support research into 
corrosion control and anti-biofouling coatings, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1672--Budget Item Relating to Marine Corps Landing Force 
                               Technology

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy Line 006 for the development of 
situational awareness and communications networking tools for 
tactical units, to be committed, obligated, or expended based 
on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

 Section 1673--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Concepts and Simulation

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Line 012 to develop 
realistic human representations of software agents for 
simulation systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

   Section 1674--Budget Item Relating to Human Effectiveness Applied 
                                Research

    This section would add $2,200,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 006 to develop training and 
simulation capabilities for the Air Force, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

       Section 1675--Budget Item Relating to Aerospace Propulsion

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Air Force Line 007 for the development of 
innovative aircraft deoxygeneration systems, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

Section 1676--Budget Item Relating to End Item Industrial Preparedness 
                               Activities

    This section would add $7,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 188 to develop a 3-D model-based 
design and manufacturing capability, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

     Section 1677--Budget Item Relating to Sensors and Electronic 
                             Survivability

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Line 006 for the 
development of command, control and navigation capabilities for 
manned and unmanned aircraft, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

  Section 1678--Budget Item Relating to Military Engineering Advanced 
                               Technology

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 052 for the development of 
innovative capabilities that support core missions of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

   Section 1679--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology

    This section would add $8.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for the 
development and demonstration of a high efficiency air 
breathing turbine propulsion system for unmanned aircraft 
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1680--Budget Item Relating to Establishment of Protocols for 
         Joint Strike Fighter Lead-Free Electronics Components

    This section would add $1.0 million to Research 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, Line 077, for 
development of protocols for the use of lead-free solder 
products and finished in the Joint Strike Fighter program, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1681--Budget Item Relating to Portable Helicopter Oxygen 
                            Delivery Systems

    This section would add $3.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 084 for 
improvements to helicopter portable oxygen delivery systems, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1682--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Rotorcraft Flight 
                                Research

    This section would add $8.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for advanced 
rotorcraft flight research, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

   Section 1683--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket Advanced 
                               Technology

    This section would add $6,250,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army Line 045 for the development of 
missile simulation technology, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

   Section 1684--Budget Item Relating to Missile and Rocket Advanced 
                               Technology

    This section would add $4.3 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 045 for 
development of base defense counter fire intercept systems, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1685--Budget Item Relating to Combat Vehicle Improvement 
                                Programs

    This section would add $25.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 163 for Abrams 
tank engine technology insertion, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.
    The committee supports continued upgrades to the Army's 
fleet of M1 Abrams tanks. The Army has stated in multiple 
committee hearings that the M1 Abrams tank is expected to be in 
service through fiscal year 2045. As a result, the committee 
believes that an aggressive upgrade program is necessary to 
keep the M1 Abrams tank fleet capable of defeating all possible 
threats. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces on March 9, 2011, the Vice Chief of Staff of 
the Army stated that the M1 Abrams tank modernization 
activities are focused on increasing the space, weight, and 
power capabilities by specifically improving the power portion 
of the tank. The committee is concerned, however, that the 
Army's current incremental plans for M1 Abrams upgrades are not 
adequately funded to resolve the current space, weight, and 
power limitations, as the budget request for power improvements 
contained no funds. The committee understands that there is an 
engine technology insertion demonstration program and would 
replace the current axial compressors on existing M1 Abrams 
engines that would improve fuel efficiency, enhance 
reliability, and lower maintenance costs. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Army to address the space, weight, and 
power limitations on the M1 Abrams tank, specifically by 
implementing engine technology insertion upgrades that would 
improve fuel efficiency, enhance reliability, and lower 
maintenance costs.

  Section 1686--Budget Item Relating to Warfighter Advanced Technology

    This section would add $5.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 029 for warfighter 
advanced technology for soldier protection modeling and 
simulation, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1687--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology

    This section would add $2.5 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for the 
development and demonstration of autonomous cargo for 
rotorcraft unmanned aerial vehicles, to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1688--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology

    This section would add $7.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for common 
data link waveform improvements, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

   Section 1689--Budget Item Relating to Aviation Advanced Technology

    This section would add $2,300,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 031 for aviation advanced 
technology to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1690--Budget Item Relating to Munitions Standardization, 
                       Effectiveness, and Safety

    This section would add $5.0 million to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 153 for enhanced 
survivability and lethality system development, to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1691--Budget Item Relating to Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

    This section would add $5,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 63892C, Line 091 for 
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

  Section 1692--Budget Item Relating to Operationally Responsive Space

    This section would add $20,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64857F, Line 
053, for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS), to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

         Section 1693--Budget Item Relating to Space Technology

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 602601F, Line 009, for Space 
Technology, Applied Research, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

      Section 1694--Budget Item Relating to Army Net Zero Programs

    This section would add $8,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 065 for the Army net zero 
program to be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-
based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1695--Budget Item Relating to an Offshore Range Environmental 
                          Baseline Assessment

    This section would add $1,750,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 052 for an offshore 
range environmental baseline assessment to be committed, 
obligated, or expended based on merit-based selection 
procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1696--Budget Item Relating to Department of Defense Corrosion 
                          Protection Projects

    This section would add $10,300,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 104 for 
Department of Defense corrosion protection projects to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1697--Budget Item Relating to a Study of Renewable and 
         Alternative Energy Applications in the Pacific Region

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 003 for a study of renewable 
and alternative energy applications in the Pacific region to be 
committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

  Section 1698--Budget Item Relating to Alternative Energy for Mobile 
                           Power Applications

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 005 for alternative energy for 
mobile power applications to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

  Section 1699--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Battery Technologies

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 016 for advanced battery 
technologies to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

     Section 1699A--Budget Item Relating to an Operational Energy 
                       Improvement Pilot Project

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 072 for an operational 
energy improvement pilot project to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

    Section 1699B--Budget Item Relating to a Microgrid Pilot Program

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 082a for a microgrid 
pilot program to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures

   Section 1699C--Budget Item Relating to Advanced Surface Machinery 
                                Systems

    This section would add $10,000,000 to Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, Line 047 for advanced 
surface machinery systems to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

      Section 1699D--Budget Item Relating to Base Camp Fuel Cells

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 052 for base camp fuel cells to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

   Section 1699E--Budget Item Relating to Defense Alternative Energy

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 047 for defense 
alternative energy to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

   Section 1699F--Budget Item Relating to Radiological Contamination 
                                Research

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Line 052 for radiological 
contamination research to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

                 Subtitle C--Operation and Maintenance


Section 1699G--Budget Item Relating to Department of Defense Corrosion 
                           Prevention Program

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, Line 260 for Department of Defense 
corrosion prevention program to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 1699H--Budget Item Relating to Navy Emergency Management and 
                              Preparedness

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy, Line X for Navy emergency management and 
preparedness to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

Section 1699I--Budget Item Relating to Army Simulation Training Systems

    This section would add $4,000,000 to Operation & 
Maintenance, Army Budget Activity 01, Force Readiness 
Operations Support, Line 070, for Army simulation training 
systems, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

Section 1699J--Budget Item Relating to Army Industrial Facility Energy 
                               Monitoring

    This section would add $2,380,000 to Operation and 
Maintenance, Army, Line 110 for Army industrial facility energy 
monitoring to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

 Section 1699K--Budget Item Relating to Army National Guard Simulation 
                            Training Systems

    This section would add $2,000,000 to Operation & 
Maintenance, Army National Guard Budget Activity 12, Land 
Forces Readiness, Line 070, for simulation training systems, to 
be committed, obligated, or expended based on merit-based 
selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

           Section1699L--Budgetary Amendment on Army Arsenals

    This section would add $6,000,000 to Operation & 
Maintenance, Army Budget Activity 04, Administration and 
Service-wide Activities, Line 370, for arsenal capital 
improvements, to be committed, obligated, or expended based on 
merit-based selection procedures or on competitive procedures.

    Section 1699M--Budget Item Relating to Cold Weather Protective 
                               Equipment

    This section would add $3,000,000 to Operations and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, Special Operations Command for cold 
weather protective equipment, to be committed, obligated, or 
expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

                                PURPOSE

    Division B provides military construction, family housing, 
and related authorities in support of the military departments 
during fiscal year 2012. As recommended by the committee, 
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$14,766,026,000 for construction in support of the active 
forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for 
fiscal year 2012.

           MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense requested $12,489,382,000 for 
military construction, $582,319,000 for Base Closure and 
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,694,346,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends 
authorization of $12,489,361,000 for military construction, 
$582,319,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,694,346,000 for family 
housing in fiscal year 2012.

                       Section 2001--Short Title

    This section would cite division B of this Act as the 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012.''

 Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to Be 
                            Specified by Law

    This section would ensure that the authorizations provided 
in titles XXI through XXVI shall expire on October 1, 2014, or 
the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2015, whichever is later.

 Section 2003--Limitation on Implementation of Projects Designated as 
                           Various Locations

    This section would provide that the authorizations of 
appropriations provided in sections 2104, 2204, 2304, 2403, 
2411, 2502, 2606, and 2703 shall be available for the programs 
specified in the table provided in section 4601 of division D 
of this Act.

  Section 2004--Effective Date This section would provide that titles 
XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI and XXVII of this Act take effect on 
  October 1, 2011, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is 
                                 later.


                 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $3,235,991,000 for Army 
military construction and $681,755,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of 
$3,305,991,000 for military construction and $681,755,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2012.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2102--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
2010.

      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2012.

          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize appropriations for Army 
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 
of division D of this Act.

  Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2009 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided in section 
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110-417) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to construct a loading dock consistent 
with the Army's construction guidelines for Multipurpose 
Training Ranges. This provision was included in the President's 
request.

  Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2011 Projects

    This section would modify the authority provided in section 
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications. This 
provision was included in the President's request.

  Section 2107--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 
 2012 Project Using Prior-Year Unobligated Army Military Construction 
                                 Funds

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct a water treatment facility for Fort Irwin, 
California, in the amount of $115,000,000 using unobligated 
prior-year Army military construction funds. This provision was 
included in the President's request.

 Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2109--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

     Section 2110--Technical Amendments to Correct Certain Project 
                             Specifications

    This section would make certain technical corrections to 
project descriptions included in table 3002 of the Military 
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 
111-383). This provision was included in the President's 
request.

Section 2111--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army Construction and 
                       Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize Army military construction at 
various locations, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $2,461,547,000 for Navy 
military construction and $468,835,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of 
$2,491,547,000 for military construction and $468,835,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2012.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction or elimination of 
funding for several projects contained in the budget request 
for military construction and family housing. These reductions 
include:
          (1) $14,998,000 for the Massey Avenue Corridor 
        Improvements and $15,000,000 in Planning and Design for 
        construction activities at Naval Station Mayport, 
        Florida.
    The budget request included $14,998,000 to construct road 
improvements at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, and $15,000,000 
to support planning and design efforts to facilitate the 
homeporting of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Navy has 
located a variety of strategic assets at one homeport for many 
years across the range of Navy assets to include aviation, 
surface, and subsurface combatants. Furthermore, the committee 
notes that the Department of the Navy has intentionally 
rejected the notion of strategic homeporting and has closed 
multiple locations that were deemed strategic homeports through 
the Base Realignment and Closure process. The committee 
believes that the Department of the Navy's assertion that 
strategic homeporting is required to maintain strategic access 
is inconsistent with previous naval decisions. As to costs, the 
onetime construction costs to implement the Department of the 
Navy's recommendation exceeds $500.0 million, and the recurring 
costs include a requirement to temporarily relocate nuclear 
capable shipyard workers from Norfolk, Virginia, to Mayport, 
Florida, to complete nuclear maintenance requirements. The 
committee believes that the overall costs to build a redundant 
carrier homeport do not appear to be in the Government's best 
interest.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction 
of $29,998,000, for this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2202--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
2012.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2012.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize appropriations for Navy 
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 
of division D of this Act. Finally, this section would restrict 
the expenditures of planning and design appropriations to 
support the establishment of a homeport for a nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.

 Section 2205--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

Section 2207--Additional Budget Items Relating to Navy Construction and 
                       Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize Navy military construction at 
various locations, to be committed, obligated, or expended 
based on merit-based selection procedures or on competitive 
procedures.

              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,364,858,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $489,565,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,330,858,000 for military construction and $489,565,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2012.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction or elimination of 
funding for several projects contained in the budget request 
for military construction and family housing. These reductions 
include:
          (1) $64,000,000 for Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar 
        at Joint Region Marianas, Guam.
    The budget request included $128,000,000 and would provide 
the first increment to construct a fuel systems maintenance 
hangar required to support a Continuous Bomber Presence, a 
Tanker Task Force, Theater Security Packages, and the Global 
Hawk beddown.
    The committee supports the full authorization of this 
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute in the year of the authorization 
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes 
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to 
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $64,000,000, a 
reduction of $64,000,000, to support this project.
          (2) $30,000,000 for Technical Applications Center, 
        Increment 2, at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
    The budget request included $79,000,000 and would provide 
the second increment to construct a Technical Applications 
Center.
    The committee supports the authorization for appropriations 
in an amount equivalent to the ability of the military 
department to execute in the year of the authorization for 
appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that 
the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to fully 
expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $49,000,000, a 
reduction of $30,000,000, to support this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2302--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal 
year 2012.

      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2012.

        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

    This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force 
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 
of division D of this Act.

Section 2305--Modification of Authorization to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2010 Project

    This section would modify the authority provided in section 
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84) and authorize the 
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications. This 
provision was included in the President's request.

 Section 2306--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2009 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

Section 2307--Limitation on Implementation of Consolidation of Air and 
                Space Operations Center of the Air Force

    This section would prohibit the disestablishment, closure, 
or realignment of any element of the Air and Space Operations 
Center until the Secretary of the Air Force, in conjunction 
with the commanders of the combatant commands, provides a 
notice to the congressional defense committees that include a 
cost-benefit assessment and the strategic consequences of the 
proposed disestablishment, closure, or realignment. This notice 
shall also include a local economic assessment and a 
description of the continuity of operations for the proposed 
disestablishment, closure, or realignment.

      Section 2308--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air Force 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize Air Force military 
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $3,848,757,000 for defense 
agency military construction and $54,191,000 for family housing 
for fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of 
$3,705,457,000 for military construction and $54,191,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2012.
    The budget request also contained $75,312,000 for chemical 
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends 
authorization of $75,312,000 for chemical demilitarization 
construction for fiscal year 2012.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction or elimination of 
funding for several projects contained in the budget request 
for military construction and family housing. These reductions 
include:
          (1) $50,000,000 for the Hospital Replacement, 
        Increment 3, at Fort Bliss, Texas.
    The budget request included $136,700,000 and would provide 
the third increment to construct an Army Medical Center.
    The committee continues to support the full authorization 
of this project. However, the committee supports the 
authorization for appropriations in an amount equivalent to the 
ability of the military department to execute in the year of 
the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded 
its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $86,700,000, a 
reduction of $50,000,000, to support this project.
          (2) $70,000,000 for the Mountainview Operations 
        Facility at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado.
    The budget request included $140,932,000 to construct an 
Operations Building to support an Aerospace Data Facility.
    However, the committee supports the authorization for 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute in the year of the authorization 
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes 
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to 
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $70,932,000, a 
reduction of $70,000,000, to support this project.
          (3) $73,300,000 for the Ambulatory Care Center, at 
        Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
    The budget request included $242,900,000 and would 
construct an ambulatory care center.
    The committee supports the full authorization of this 
project. However, the committee supports the authorization for 
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the 
military department to execute in the year of the authorization 
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes 
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to 
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2012.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $169,600,000, a 
reduction of $73,300,000, to support this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations


    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized defense 
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

         Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects and require that the 
Secretary of Defense reserve a portion of the amount for energy 
conservation projects for Reserve Components.

    Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize appropriations for Defense 
Agencies military construction at the levels identified in 
section 4601 of division D of this Act.

  Section 2404--Additional Budget Items Relating to Defense Agencies 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize defense agencies military 
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations


        Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
              Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide

    This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical 
Demilitarization construction at the levels identified in 
section 4601 of division D of this Act.

   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $272,611,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) 
for fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization of 
$272,611,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2012.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

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

          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

    This section would authorize appropriations for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the 
levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,230,306,000 for military 
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for 
fiscal year 2012. The committee recommends authorization for 
fiscal year 2012 of $1,307,585,000 to be distributed as 
follows:

Army National Guard.....................................    $823,592,000
Air National Guard......................................    $133,525,000
Army Reserve............................................    $280,549,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................     $26,299,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................     $43,620,000

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustment

    The committee recommends a reduction of funding for a 
project contained in the budget request for military 
construction and family housing. This reduction includes:
    (1) $12,721,000 for TFI--F-22 Combat Aircraft Parking Apron 
at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.
    The budget request included $12,721,000 and would construct 
an aircraft parking apron for twenty F-22 Aircraft.
    The committee supports the requirements associated with 
this project but notes that other projects authorized for 
appropriation in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) will have a 
cascading impact on the timely construction of this project. 
The committee supports the authorization for appropriations in 
an amount equivalent to the ability of the military department 
to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. 
For this project, the committee believes that the Department of 
Defense has exceeded its ability to fully expend the funding in 
fiscal year 2012.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of 
$12,721,000, to support this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations


  Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

    Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Navy 
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for 
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in 
this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.

   Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air 
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

   Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force 
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2012. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

   Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and 
                                Reserve

    This section would authorize appropriations for the 
National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels 
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

                  Subtitle B--Additional Budget Items


 Section 2611--Additional Budget Items Relating to Army National Guard 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize Army National Guard military 
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

 Section 2612--Additional Budget Items Relating to Air National Guard 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize Air National Guard military 
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

  Section 2613--Additional Budget Item Relating to Air Force Reserve 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize Air Force Reserve military 
construction at various locations, to be committed, obligated, 
or expended based on merit-based selection procedures or on 
competitive procedures.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


 Section 2621--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2008 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorization listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

 Section 2622--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2012, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2013, whichever is later. This provision was included in the 
President's request.

          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $323,543,000 for activities 
related to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities 
and $258,776,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The 
committee recommends authorization of $323,543,000 for prior 
BRAC round activities and $258,776,000 for BRAC 2005 
activities.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


            Base Realignment and Closure Community Recovery

    The Base Realignment and Closure process has challenged 
many communities to determine a new direction because of a loss 
of military mission. Some of these former military 
installations have unique capabilities that are difficult to 
replicate in the private sector to include extensive Secure 
Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) that support 
specific physical and infrastructure security requirements. 
Many of these communities also have an experienced labor force, 
complete with Department of Defense/Department of Homeland 
Security security clearances.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense may 
be able to utilize these specialized facilities and support the 
private sector in reusing these unique capabilities. To this 
end, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to use 
all of the available real estate conveyance mechanisms to 
quickly revert closed military installations into productive, 
viable business units that support the unique capabilities 
resident in these local communities. Using installations that 
have been impacted by Base Realignment and Closure as part of 
the DARPA program entitled ``National Cyber Range'' is a good 
example of how a community can establish new missions and 
capabilities while still providing a critical national security 
service. The committee believes that leases in furtherance of 
conveyance and economic development conveyances represent ideal 
real estate mechanisms to quickly put closing military 
installations into the private sector. These conveyance 
mechanisms should allow communities to recover rapidly from the 
debilitating effects of Base Realignment and Closure.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and 
 Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
                              Account 1990

    This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing 
activities that are required to implement the decision of prior 
Base Realignment and Closure activities at the levels 
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

Section 2702--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded 
        through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

    This section would authorize military construction projects 
for fiscal year 2012 for ongoing activities that are required 
to implement the decisions to support Base Realignment and 
Closure 2005 activities.

Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and 
 Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
                              Account 2005

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction projects for fiscal year 2012 that are required to 
implement the decisions of the Base Closure and Realignment 
2005 activities at the levels identified in section 4601 of 
division D of this Act.

 Section 2704--Authority to Extend Deadline for Completion of Limited 
         Number of Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations

    This section would amend section 2904 of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) and 
provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to extend the 
completion of not more than seven recommendations provided by 
the Base Closure and Realignment Commission of 2005 for up to 1 
year.

Section 2705--Increased Emphasis on Evaluation of Costs and Benefits in 
 Consideration and Selection of Military Installations for Closure or 
                              Realignment

    This section would amend section 2687 of title 10, United 
States Code, and require the secretary concerned to include a 
cost-benefit analysis of all proposed closures and realignments 
that exceed such thresholds. Finally, this section would 
restrict the secretary concerned ability to bypass overall 
thresholds of this section by reducing the workforce to a lower 
threshold and then realigning the remaining function.

    Section 2706--Special Considerations Related to Transportation 
Infrastructure in Consideration and Selection of Military Installations 
                       for Closure or Realignment

    This section would amend section 2687 of title 10, United 
States Code, and require the secretary concerned to include a 
transportation assessment of a proposed closure or realignment 
of civilian personnel that exceed certain thresholds.

         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


         Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Homeporting in Europe

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
exploring the feasibility of homeporting U.S. Aegis ballistic 
missile defense (BMD) ships in Europe in support of the phased, 
adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. The committee 
understands that such forward-basing of U.S. Aegis BMD ships in 
Europe may alleviate some force structure demands on the Aegis 
fleet by reducing their time in transit and providing closer 
proximity to Europe and the Middle East. Such a naval port in 
Europe would also further U.S. policy on international missile 
defense cooperation and burden sharing for the collective 
defense of Europe and the United States.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
notification to the congressional defense committees preceding 
the Department's announcement of a decision to homeport U.S. 
Aegis BMD ships in Europe. The notification should include, at 
a minimum: the proposed location; number of ships to be 
homeported in Europe; the implementation schedule and funding 
profile, including military construction; and a summary of any 
analysis of alternatives that supports the decision, including 
any cost-benefit analysis.

                   Africa Command Basing Alternatives

    The committee notes that a viable model exists to locate a 
geographic combatant command headquarters outside the 
respective area of responsibility and in the United States, as 
demonstrated by U.S. Central Command, U.S. Southern Command, 
and U.S. Pacific Command. The committee believes that this type 
of basing model is particularly relevant for U.S. Africa 
Command because of the sensitivities that many African nations 
may have with regard to a permanent U.S. combatant command on 
the African continent. The committee further notes that the 
Commander, U.S. Africa Command has reviewed alternative basing 
options in the United States to support mission requirements. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 
2012, the conclusions of an alternative basing review. This 
report should include the following:
          (1) An assessment of the cost-benefit associated with 
        moving the U.S. Africa Command headquarters from its 
        current location to the United States; and
          (2) An assessment of the strategic risk associated 
        with each basing alternative.
    The committee urges the Secretary to conduct this basing 
review in an open and transparent manner consistent with the 
processes established for such a major review. The committee 
believes the headquarters of U.S. Africa Command should be 
located at an installation that provides the maximum military 
value to the realigned command and at the minimum cost required 
to implement the relocation.

             Army Housing Shortfall at Growth Installations

    The committee understands the Army has identified a 
shortfall of housing at several Army installations as a result 
of base realignment and closure and other force structure 
changes. While local communities are working to respond to the 
increased demand for off-post housing, the committee is 
concerned that the lingering effects of the financial crisis 
have made it difficult for civilian developers to obtain 
construction financing to fulfill the Army's off-post housing 
requirements. The committee encourages the Army to examine 
existing authorities which permit the leasing of off-post 
housing.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to provide to the committee, no later than September 30, 
2011, a report which identifies installations where a housing 
deficit exists. The report also should detail the efforts being 
taken by the Army to address unmet housing requirements, 
including the use of existing authorities.

 Assessment of Improvements in Construction Techniques to Achieve Life-
                    Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities

    The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense failed to 
submit the report ``Assessment of Improvements in Construction 
Techniques to Achieve Life-Cycle Cost Effective Facilities'' 
directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 by March 1, 2011. The committee believes that the 
Secretary has allowed disparate construction methods to be 
incorporated into the military construction program that reduce 
the committee's ability to determine whether life-cycle, cost-
effective facilities are being proposed by the Secretary. 
Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary expedite 
the completion of this critical report to maximize efficiencies 
in the military construction portfolio by identifying the 
appropriate, qualified entity to conduct the assessment 
directed by committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and 
submit the report to the congressional defense committees by 
November 1, 2011.

                         Castner Range Complex

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
ceased operations at the Castner Range Complex at Fort Bliss, 
Texas, in 1971. In testimony, the Army indicated that Castner 
Range is ``wholly impractical to use for any range activity.'' 
The committee is interested in maintaining this land for a 
conservation purpose. Therefore, the committee urges the 
Department of the Army to assess whether the Castner Range 
Complex should be retained in the Department's inventory and 
encourages the Department to enter into a lease or other 
agreement in furtherance of conveyance with eligible 
conservation entities.

    Collateral Support for Infrastructure and Real Property Programs

    The committee is aware that Department of Defense relies 
extensively on consultants and contractors to support various 
Department infrastructure initiatives and real estate 
transactions involving programs such as housing, lodging, and 
utility privatization programs; real property exchanges; 
enhanced use leasing; and various other public-private 
partnerships involving real property. In particular, as the 
complexity of such initiatives and transactions has increased 
over the past several years, so too has the Department's use of 
consultants, contractors, and other experts to help ensure that 
prudent real property decisions are made to provide the best 
capabilities and economic outcomes to the Department.
    The committee recognizes and supports the Department's 
efforts to obtain certain economies and achieve other 
objectives through the various infrastructure and real property 
initiatives and programs. However, regardless of whether 
Government employees or consultants and contractors are used to 
negotiate and implement deals to support the various public-
private partnerships and alternatively financed projects, the 
Government's interests must be well represented from start to 
finish. As such, the committee is concerned about the 
preparedness of the Department's employees for negotiating and 
implementing such deals, the use and cost of consultant and 
contractor support participation in these arrangements, and the 
Department's monitoring and oversight of such consultant and 
contractor involvement. Moreover, the acquisition, management, 
and disposal of real property and related programs may involve 
inherently governmental functions, raising questions about 
whether they should be performed by qualified government 
employees.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to review the Department's use of consultants 
and contractors to support infrastructure and real property 
programs, including negotiations for alternatively financed 
projects, and submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 30, 2012. At a minimum, the review should 
assess the following:
          (1) To what extent and at what cost has the 
        Department used consultants and contractors to assist 
        in negotiating and implementing the various 
        infrastructure and real property programs?
          (2) How does the Department determine the level of 
        involvement of consultants and contractors in support 
        of negotiations for various real estate deals and 
        alternatively financed projects, or in the management 
        of the Department's real property programs?
          (3) To what extent does the Department's oversight 
        and monitoring of consultant and contractor support in 
        these areas ensure that the level of support is 
        appropriate, expected results are realized, and costs 
        are minimized?
          (4) How has the Department ensured that Government 
        employees are sufficiently trained to successfully 
        negotiate and implement the various infrastructure and 
        real property programs as well as oversee related 
        support provided by consultants and contractors?
    The Comptroller General may add such additional questions 
as he deems relevant.

    Comptroller General Report Regarding Third-Party Financing for 
          Renewable Energy Projects on Military Installations

    In order for the Department of Defense to achieve energy 
security and reduce energy consumption in accordance with 
federal laws and executive orders, it has identified mechanisms 
to partner with industry for third-party financing for the 
development of renewable energy projects. These include 
agreements with private-sector entities through Enhanced Use 
Leases, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, Power Purchase 
Agreements, and Utility Energy Service Contracts that leverage 
private investment in developing renewable energy projects and 
purchasing energy.
    These agreements can be of great benefit to the Department 
of Defense. However, the committee is concerned that Department 
of Defense project-level officials may not have the necessary 
information to develop the best possible contracts that most 
effectively leverage a variety of factors including resource 
potential, federal and state incentives, payback periods, state 
regulations, and other regulatory considerations. For the 
Department of Defense to be successful in its renewable energy 
partnerships with the private sector, it is critical that 
Department officials have adequate energy-related technical and 
contracting expertise. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees by February 29, 2012. At a 
minimum, the review should assess the following:
          (1) What kinds of funding approaches, such as full 
        up-front appropriated funds and alternative financing 
        approaches, are used by the Department of Defense to 
        enable the construction of renewable energy projects 
        and purchase of such energy?
          (2) What are some of the benefits and risks, 
        including cost implications, of the funding approaches 
        used by the Department of Defense in renewable energy 
        projects and purchases?
          (3) To what extent has the Department of Defense used 
        each of the funding approaches identified in the first 
        question?
          (4) To what extent have oversight mechanisms been 
        developed by the Department of Defense or the military 
        services to monitor the use of these funding approaches 
        and ensure the best value and terms?
    The Comptroller General may add such additional questions 
as he deems appropriate in furtherance of this directive to 
ensure adequate coverage of the issues related to renewable 
energy contracting actions.

  Comptroller General Review of Department of Defense's Report on the 
                      Arctic and Northwest Passage

    The committee continues to be concerned about the 
Department of Defense's resources and preparedness for 
accessing, operating and protecting national interests in the 
Arctic. With approximately 20 percent of the world's untapped 
natural resources located in that region, there are significant 
national security equities. The Navy estimates that by 2030, 
shipping lanes will be open for several months during the 
summer thereby increasing shipping traffic.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
on Arctic operations and the Northwest Passage to the 
congressional defense committees by May 30, 2011. The committee 
further directs the Secretary to submit a copy of the report to 
the Comptroller General of the United States concurrent with 
submission to the congressional defense committees. The 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to provide an assessment of the report to the congressional 
defense committees including the Secretary's response to the 
requirements in H. Rept. 111-491, any shortfalls noted, 
recommendations for legislative action, and any information the 
Comptroller General deems appropriate in the context of that 
review, within 180 days after the Secretary's submission.

                        Construction Unit Costs

    The committee notes that the Department recently completed 
an assessment of construction unit costs and determined that 
there is a multitude of construction variables that challenge 
the Department to provide competitive construction costs with 
comparable type facilities in the commercial sector. These 
challenges include requirements that drive the overall costs to 
include Federal contracting requirements (including Davis-Bacon 
wages, Federal subcontracting and small-business goals, bonding 
requirements per the Miller Act), Federal design requirements 
(including Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection measures), energy 
efficiency objectives, and a robust quality-assurance capacity 
to manage construction contracts. The committee is alarmed to 
note that these costs generally add 25-40 percent in 
construction costs above private-sector construction 
requirements. The committee believes that these substantive 
markups are excessive and limit the purchasing ability of the 
Department to procure vital military construction projects. The 
committee also believes that it is incumbent on the Department 
to minimize barriers to competition and ensure the widest 
participation of construction contractors to military 
construction programs. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to complete a report by March 1, 2012 to 
the congressional defense committees and should include the 
following:
          (1) An assessment of the programs or policies and the 
        associated costs that contribute to the overall 
        military construction program beyond those costs 
        associated with typical construction projects in the 
        private sector. This review should also include an 
        assessment of specific facility categories to include, 
        at a minimum, child care centers, chapels, dependent 
        schools, and dormitories;
          (2) An assessment of the programs and policies and 
        their associated costs that contribute to variances 
        between the Secretaries of the military department's 
        unit costs. This assessment should specifically include 
        variances in the development of military construction 
        justification documents and overall approaches to 
        construction methods to include concrete and wood type 
        construction practices; and
          (3) The Secretary's plan of action and milestones to 
        reduce these costs, consistent with the life-cycle, 
        cost-effective assessment as defined by section 2802 of 
        title 10, United States Code.

Cooperative Agreements to Facilitate Defense Posture Review Initiatives

    The Defense Posture Review Initiative includes the 
realignment of military forces in Japan, along with the 
realignment of Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. This 
effort is one of the most extensive realignments of military 
forces in recent memory.
    The committee recognizes the impacts on Guam associated 
with the strategic realignment of military forces from Okinawa, 
Japan, to Guam and recognizes that non-governmental 
organizations, including institutes of higher learning, have 
provided analysis and research into a variety of environmental 
and socioeconomic impacts for other projects on Guam and in the 
Western Pacific region. The committee acknowledges that the 
Department of Defense has entered into cooperative agreements 
with institutions of higher learning to provide baseline 
studies and analyses will be needed to facilitate additional 
assessments on the location of a proposed firing range and 
transient nuclear aircraft carrier berthing on Guam over the 
coming months and years.
    The committee recommends that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) enter into a cooperative agreement to help facilitate 
further Environmental Impact processes associated with the 
Defense Posture Review Initiative in the Asia-Pacific region. 
As such, the committee urges the Department of Defense take all 
necessary steps pursuant and consistent with DOD directive 
3210.6-R, ``Department of Defense Grant and Agreement 
Regulations'' and establish a cooperative agreement with 
appropriate non-governmental organizations, including qualified 
institutions of learning, to facilitate better studies and 
analyses to support the Defense Policy Review Initiatives.

         Corrosion Evaluation for Facilities and Infrastructure

    Because the costs associated with facilities and 
infrastructure account for a significant portion of the 
Department of Defense's $22.5 billion annual cost to address 
the impact of corrosion, the committee believes that there may 
be more cost-efficient opportunities for developing strategies 
for enhancing the sustainability of existing facilities as well 
as for ensuring the integration of corrosion prevention and 
mitigation technologies into the buildup of future facilities. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Office of 
Corrosion Policy and Oversight (as designated by section 2228 
of title 10, United States Code) to conduct a study of these 
costs and to submit the findings to the House Committee on 
Armed Services a report within 300 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act. The study should include the following:
          (1) Identify the key drivers of these costs and 
        recommend strategies for reducing their impact.
          (2) Review a sampling of facilities that are 
        representative of facility type, military department, 
        and facility age.
          (3) An assessment of at least one planned facility 
        construction program.
          (4) Include, but not limited to, information obtained 
        from site visits and the examination of program 
        documentation including maintenance and facility 
        engineering processes.
    The Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight is further 
directed to consult with the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to determine 
the appropriate level of access necessary to conduct an 
effective and comprehensive evaluation. Lastly, the committee 
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide 
an assessment to the congressional defense committees of the 
completeness of the evaluation within 60 days of the delivery 
of the Director's report to the congressional defense 
committees.

               Department of Defense Microgrid Activities

    The committee is concerned about the implications and 
potential consequences of a failure in the public grid and the 
impact on military installations. However, the committee 
recognizes that the Department of Defense is taking steps to 
invest in microgrid and smart grid technologies for 
installation and operational energy. The committee is concerned 
that there may be redundancy among these investments. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
February 29, 2012, that includes the following:
          (1) An assessment of the total investment being made 
        into Department of Defense microgrid and smart grid 
        activities, including total value, location, duration 
        of project, and transition plan;
          (2) An assessment of activities being pursued 
        collaboratively with the Department of Energy to 
        advance microgrids; and
          (3) An assessment of policy initiatives and oversight 
        of microgrid and smart grid activities by the Deputy 
        Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
        Environment and the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 
        Operational Energy Plans, and Programs to streamline 
        investments for the purposes of installation energy and 
        operational energy.

       Elementary and Secondary Schools on Military Installations

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
undertaken an assessment of the conditions and capacity of 
elementary and secondary schools located on military 
installations that serve children of members of the Armed 
Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees. 
Furthermore, the committee is aware of preliminary reports that 
many of these schools face capacity or structural deficiencies. 
The committee is concerned by these reports and the adverse 
impact that the substandard capacity and structural conditions 
may have on the quality of life for military families.
    The committee notes that one of the results of this 
assessment is a $439 million capital investment into the 
Department of Defense Education Activity for Department of 
Defense-owned schools in fiscal year 2011. These appropriations 
will be applied to address some of the structural and quantity 
deficiencies that exist in the education enterprise. The 
committee also notes that there is another category of 
elementary and secondary schools located on military 
installations; these schools are operated by a Local Education 
Authority but owned by the Federal Government. For this 
category of schools, the committee notes that $250 million in 
fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations were applied toward the 
recapitalization of existing, structurally deficient elementary 
and secondary schools.
    The committee encourages the prompt disbursement of funds 
made available in fiscal year 2011 to construct, renovate, 
repair, or expand educational facilities on military 
installations in order to address identified capacity or 
structural deficiencies. For those funds to support a Local 
Education Authority-operated school but owned by the Federal 
Government, the committee urges the Department to disburse 
these funds in a manner that gives priority to schools with the 
most serious deficiencies as determined by the Secretary of 
Defense.

                Energy and Water Utilities Privatization

    The committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should more aggressively and effectively implement utilities 
privatization as part of their asset management strategy to 
allow each military service to focus on core defense missions 
and functions. The committee further believes that the use of 
utilities privatization can improve energy and water 
efficiencies and improve installation infrastructure in a cost 
effective manner for the long-term benefit of our military 
members and their families. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by February 1, 
2012, to the congressional defense committees that includes the 
following:
          (1) An update of the report elements included in 
        section 2823(f) of the National Defense Authorization 
        Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163); and
          (2) An assessment of whether it would be beneficial 
        to leverage utilities privatization as part of agency 
        initiatives to increase use of renewable energy and 
        conserve water.

                     Fort Bragg Parking Assessment

    The committee notes that Fort Bragg has significantly 
increased the overall base population and this population 
increase has had a cascading impact on the overall 
transportation infrastructure on the installation. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2012, that assesses the parking requirements to support the 
entirety of Fort Bragg's personnel to include all civilian 
employees and family members. The report should address the 
significant increase in daily vehicular traffic through Fort 
Bragg, North Carolina, and surrounding communities not only due 
to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities but to the 
entirety of Fort Bragg's force structure increases as well. At 
a minimum, this report should include:
          (1) The projected number of military and civilian 
        personnel that require parking to support activities on 
        Fort Bragg;
          (2) The current parking available;
          (3) The parking plan to accommodate the increased 
        number of personnel caused by the BRAC realignment, and 
        the distances that service members have to travel via 
        their personal transportation or military vehicles to 
        conduct day-to-day activities such as vehicular 
        maintenance; and
          (4) Options to address the entirety of Fort Bragg's 
        parking deficiencies that could include parking garages 
        or other public transportation mitigation measures.

                     Homeowners Assistance Program

    The Department of Defense's Homeowners Assistance Program 
(HAP) has provided financial assistance to military personnel 
and Department of Defense civilians who suffer financial loss 
on the sale of their home when a base realignment or closure 
action causes a decline in the local real estate market. The 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
16) expanded the program to assist additional categories of 
people, including those who are wounded, injured, or become ill 
while deployed, the surviving spouses of military personnel and 
civilians who are killed in the line of duty, and service 
members who purchased property before July 1, 2006, and were 
required to permanently relocate between February 1, 2006, and 
September 30, 2010.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
assessing the magnitude of a potential shortfall in existing 
resources and is currently projecting a $400.0 million deficit 
in the expanded Homeowners Assistance Program. This deficit 
could begin to impact eligible beneficiaries by the end of the 
current fiscal year and has the potential to impact more than 
3,000 beneficiaries. The Department of Defense briefed the 
committee on its intent to address this deficit issue in its 
fiscal year 2013 budget submission. Furthermore, even if the 
program were fully funded, the committee is concerned that 
while the average time to process a complete application is 60 
days, the committee understands that a number of applicants 
have seen delays of up to 1 year. Finally, the committee is 
concerned that the eligibility dates that were provided in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
16) have excluded certain localities whose real estate markets 
declined after July 1, 2006, and service members who receive 
permanent change of station orders within those localities, 
after September 30, 2010.
    The committee is concerned that the compilation of these 
issues will have a cascading impact on thousands of 
beneficiaries who linger in potential foreclosure and 
bankruptcy because of the inability of the Department of 
Defense to adequately forecast required investments or to 
promptly process a completed application. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a brief 
to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2011, 
that includes the following:
          (1) An assessment of the overall military 
        construction program with a goal to eliminate 
        unnecessary programmatic investments and apply savings 
        toward the potential deficit in the Homeowners 
        Assistance Program; and
          (2) An assessment on methods to improve the 
        efficiency of processing applications as well as to 
        include hiring, on a temporary basis, additional staff 
        to assist with the current backlog of claims that has 
        resulted due to the increased volume of applications 
        made under the expanded criteria provided by the 
        Homeowners Assistance Program as expanded by the 
        American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and
          (3) An assessment of large military installations, 
        whose local real estate market declined after July 1, 
        2006, and options that could be pursued at these large 
        military installations, to include the associated cost 
        impact, that would ameliorate the impact of the 
        declining real estate market.

                      Leasing of Military Museums

    The committee notes that section 2812 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) provided expanded authority to retain proceeds 
generated from leases of non-excess military museum property by 
the military museum that developed such proceeds. The committee 
supports the utilization of leasing agreements to expand the 
use of military museums for the generation of revenue for these 
museums through the rental of facilities to the public, 
commercial and non-profit entities, State and local 
governments, and other Federal agencies. The committee 
encourages the Department to expand the use of this authority 
and pursue such opportunities without additional specific, per-
facility authorization for such activities.

                Miramar Air Station Trap and Skeet Range

    The committee notes that the San Diego Shotgun Sports 
Association has operated a trap and skeet range on Marine Corps 
Air Station Miramar, California since 1957, providing free 
recreational shooting for active duty military personnel and 
their families for more than 50 years and strengthening the 
bond between the residents of the community and the United 
States Marine Corps. The committee understands that operation 
of the trap and skeet range has ceased while environmental 
mitigation and cleanup measures are conducted.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2011 that 
includes the following:
          (1) Details of a plan to make adjustments to the 
        range property and reopen the trap and skeet range for 
        operation without affecting the environmental sensitive 
        area containing lead shot;
          (2) Plans and timeline to reopen the trap and skeet 
        range;
          (3) Other locations available on the base where a 
        trap and skeet range could be operated;
          (4) Criteria needed to operate a trap and skeet range 
        while properly meeting necessary environmental laws 
        through a Lead Management Plan (LMP);
          (5) Possible revenue collected through implementing a 
        lead mining operation on the trap and skeet range 
        guided by a certified LMP;
          (6) Details of all environmental clean-up measures 
        necessary to reopen the trap and skeet range;
          (7) A copy of the environmental assessment that was 
        completed for the trap and skeet range including 
        documentation detailing the imminent danger and hazard 
        of lead contamination in the local water source 
        directly linked to the lead shot from the trap and 
        skeet range.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


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


Section 2801--Prohibition on Use of Any Cost-Plus System of Contracting 
     for Military Construction and Military Family Housing Projects

    This section would amend section 2306 of title 10, United 
States Code, and prohibit the use of cost-type contracting for 
military construction projects and military family housing 
projects. Such prohibition will not apply in case of a 
declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a 
national emergency pursuant to section 1621 of title 50, United 
States Code.

Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Unspecified Minor 
                     Military Construction Projects

    This section would increase the authority provided by 
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, and establish a 
$3,000,000 threshold requiring specific military construction 
authorization. This provision would also amend section 2805 by 
extending certain temporary authorities associated with defense 
laboratories.

    Section 2803--Condition on Rental of Family Housing in Foreign 
                Countries for General and Flag Officers

    This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United 
States Code, and limit general and flag officer housing leases 
in foreign countries to the design criteria for similar housing 
in the United States.

 Section 2804--Protections for Suppliers of Labor and Materials under 
   Contracts for Military Construction Projects and Military Family 
                            Housing Projects

    This section would amend section 2852 of title 10, United 
States Code, and increase the performance and payment threshold 
requirements for construction contracts from $100,000 to 
$150,000. This change would align performance and payment 
bonding requirements with the recently revised simplified 
acquisition threshold.

  Section 2805--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Operation and 
   Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects inside United States 
 Central Command Area of Responsibility and Combined Joint Task Force--
          Horn of Africa Areas of Responsibility and Interest

    This section would amend section 2808 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B 
of Public Law 108-136) and extend the Department's ability to 
use operation and maintenance appropriations for military 
construction purposes for the U.S. Central Command and Horn of 
Africa area until September 30, 2012.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


 Section 2811--Clarification of Authority to Use Pentagon Reservation 
   Maintenance Revolving Fund for Minor Construction and Alteration 
                   Activities at Pentagon Reservation

    This section would provide unspecified minor construction 
authority, at the limits prescribed by section 2805 of title 
10, United States Code, for the Pentagon Reservation 
Maintenance Revolving Fund.

  Section 2812--Removal of Discretion of Secretaries of the Military 
 Departments Regarding Purposes for Which Easements for Rights-of-Way 
                             May Be Granted

    This section would amend section 2668 of title 10, United 
States Code, and prohibit the use of a real estate easement as 
a method to bypass other real estate authorities. The committee 
is aware that certain leasing proposals for energy projects 
have used authority provided by section 2668 of title 10, 
United States Code, as an expedited method to obtain a real 
estate lease. The committee believes that the authorities 
provided by section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, 
provide the appropriate framework that allows the secretary 
concerned to manage Government properties and to evaluate 
leasing proposals.

 Section 2813--Limitations on Use or Development of Property in Clear 
                               Zone Areas

    This section would modify section 2684(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to permit the use of the readiness and 
environmental protection initiative authority to protect clear 
zone areas from use of encroachment that is incompatible with 
the mission of the installation.

   Section 2814--Defense Access Road Program Enhancements to Address 
  Transportation Infrastructure in Vicinity of Military Installations

    This section would amend section 210 of title 23, United 
States Code, and expand the authority of the Department of 
Defense to use military construction appropriations to mitigate 
significant transportation impacts caused as a result of an 
expanded defense mission. This section would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to convene the Economic Adjustment 
Committee to consider sources of funding associated with the 
defense access roads program. Finally, this section would 
require a separate budget exhibit for the defense access roads 
program.

                      Subtitle C--Energy Security


  Section 2821--Consolidation of Definitions Used in Energy Security 
                                Chapter

    This section would modify subchapter 3 of chapter 173 of 
title 10, United States Code, and create a new chapter 2924 to 
consolidate energy security definitions.

  Section 2822--Consideration of Energy Security in Developing Energy 
   Projects on Military Installations Using Renewable Energy Sources

    This section would amend sections 2911, 2917 and 2922a, of 
title 10, United States Code, to account for energy security 
when entering into facility energy projects financed by third 
parties using renewable energy sources on military 
installations.
    The committee is concerned when the Department of Defense 
contracts for renewable energy projects through third parties 
on military installations that have no capability to provide 
power directly to the installation in case of emergency.

  Section 2823--Establishment of Interim Objective for Department of 
                   Defense 2025 Renewable Energy Goal

    This section would modify section 2911(e) of title 10, 
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an interim goal for fiscal year 2018 for the 
production or procurement of facility energy from renewable 
sources.

Section 2824--Use of Centralized Purchasing Agents for Renewable Energy 
Certificates to Reduce Cost of Facility Energy Projects Using Renewable 
                Energy Sources and Improve Efficiencies

    This section would amend section 2911(e) of title 10, 
United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a policy requiring centralized, bulk purchase of 
replacement renewable energy certificates when entering into 
agreements for facility energy projects involving renewable 
technologies to maximize savings for the Department of Defense. 
This will help the Department of Defense achieve the goal 
regarding the consumption of electricity from renewable energy 
sources established by section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852).

 Section 2825--Identification of Energy-Efficient Products for Use in 
Construction, Repair, or Renovation of Department of Defense Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to prescribe a list 
of energy-efficient products for use in construction, repair, 
or renovation of Department of Defense facilities. The list 
would be updated annually and submitted with the annual Energy 
Performance Master Plan. This section would require the 
Secretary of Defense to consider at a minimum the following 
technologies in developing the list:
    (1) Roof-top solar thermal, photovoltaic, direct solar 
technology, and energy reducing coating technologies;
    (2) On demand solar and tank-less hot water systems;
    (3) Energy management control and supervisory control and 
data acquisition systems;
    (4) Energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning systems;
    (5) Thermal windows and insulation systems;
    (6) Electric meters;
    (7) Lighting, equipment, and appliances that are designed 
to use less electricity;
    (8) Hybrid vehicle plug-in charging and hydrogen-generating 
fuel stations;
    (9) Solar-power collecting structures to shade vehicle 
parking areas;
    (10) Wall and roof insulation systems and air infiltration 
mitigation systems, such as weather-proofing;
    (11) Fuel cells;
    (12) Hydrogen; and
    (13) Ground source and natural gas heat pumps and combined 
heat and power systems.

     Section 2826--Core Curriculum and Certification Standards for 
                 Department of Defense Energy Managers

    This section would amend section 2915 of title 10, United 
States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish 
a training program for Department of Defense installation 
energy managers. The requirement for federal energy managers is 
defined by section 8253 of title 42, United States Code. The 
committee encourages the Department to consider industry 
accreditations in the development of its training and 
certification of energy managers. The committee recommends that 
at a minimum, the Secretary of Defense create annual 
opportunities for energy managers to exchange ideas and lessons 
learned.

    Section 2827--Submission of Annual Department of Defense Energy 
                           Management Reports

    This section would amend section 2925 of title 10, United 
States Code, and require the Department of Defense to submit 
its installation energy management report within 120 days after 
the end of each fiscal year.

    Section 2828--Continuous Commissioning of Department of Defense 
  Facilities to Resolve Operating Problems, Improve Comfort, Optimize 
                   Energy Use, and Identify Retrofits

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
include continuous commissioning in its requirements to execute 
section 8253 of title 42, United States Code. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to modify the plan prepared 
pursuant to section 8253(e)(3) of title 42, United States Code, 
to reflect the requirement to include continuous commissioning 
under subsection (a). The committee expects the Department of 
Defense to protect its facility energy investments by 
conducting continuous commissioning to ensure its facilities 
operate at optimum energy efficiency.

  Section 2829--Requirement for Department of Defense to Capture and 
         Track Data Generated in Metering Department Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
capture and track the data that is being metered in accordance 
with section 8253 of title 42, United States Code. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to modify his 
plan prepared pursuant to section 8253(e)(3) of title 42, 
United States Code for the Department of Defense to reflect the 
requirement to capture and benchmark data that has been 
metered. The committee is concerned that the Department of 
Defense has made significant investments to meter its 
facilities but is not pursuing technologies to capture the data 
from the meters across its facilities.

   Section 2830--Metering of Navy Piers to Accurately Measure Energy 
                              Consumption

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
modify the Navy's plan for implementing section 8253(e)(3) of 
title 42, United States Code to include a metering requirement 
for Navy piers, in addition to its buildings to ensure energy 
consumption can be tracked, captured, and reduced while naval 
vessels are in port. The committee encourages the Secretary of 
the Navy to modify his plan prepared pursuant to section 
8253(e)(3) of title 42, United States Code, as necessary to 
reflect the inclusion of Navy piers under subsection (a).

Section 2831--Report on Energy-Efficiency Standards and Prohibition on 
Use of Funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold or 
                         Platinum Certification

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services regarding a cost benefit 
analysis of Department of Defense investments in American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental 
Design (LEED) certifications. This section would also prohibit 
the use of funds for LEED gold or platinum certifications in 
fiscal year 2012. The committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense is investing significant amounts of funds 
for more aggressive certifications without demonstrating the 
appropriate return on investment.

           Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment


   Section 2841--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funding to Support 
Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of Military Installations 
              and Relocation of Military Personnel on Guam

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
assist the Government of Guam in meeting the costs of providing 
increased municipal services and facilities associated with the 
realignment of military forces to Guam. This authorization 
would be provided if the Secretary determines that an unfair 
and excessive financial burden will be incurred by the 
Government of Guam to provide the services and facilities in 
the absence of the Secretary's assistance. This authority would 
expire on September 30, 2018.

  Section 2842--Medical Care Coverage for H-2B Temporary Workforce on 
                 Military Construction Projects on Guam

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from 
awarding any additional construction projects associated with 
the realignment of military forces to Guam until the Secretary 
establishes a lead system integrator for health care for the H-
2B workers.

Section 2843--Certification of Military Readiness Need for Firing Range 
             on Guam as Condition on Establishment of Range

    This section would prohibit the establishment of a firing 
range on Guam until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the 
firing range is required to meet a national security need.

Section 2844--Repeal of Condition on Use of Specific Utility Conveyance 
  Authority Regarding Guam Integrated Water and Wastewater Treatment 
                                 System

    This section would modify section 2822 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B 
of Public Law 111-383) and modify the permissive utility 
conveyance to the Guam Waterworks Authority. Specifically, this 
section would eliminate the requirement to allocate 
representation on the Guam Consolidated Commission on Utilities 
for the Department of the Navy.

                      Subtitle E--Land Conveyances


             Section 2851--Land Exchange, Fort Bliss Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
exchange approximately 694 acres of real property at Fort 
Bliss, Texas, for approximately 2,880 acres of real property 
from the Texas General Land Office.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


  Section 2861--Change in Name of the Industrial College of the Armed 
  Forces to the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and 
                           Resource Strategy

    This section would change the name of the ``Industrial 
College of the Armed Forces'' to the ``Dwight D. Eisenhower 
School for National Security and Resource Strategy''.

Section 2862--Limitation on Reduction in Number of Members of the Armed 
    Forces Assigned to Permanent Duty at a Military Installation to 
                 Effectuate Realignment of Installation

    This section would limit the Secretary of Defense or the 
Secretary of the military department concerned from reducing 
more that 1,000 military service members at a military 
installation until a notice is provided by the Secretary as to 
the rationale for such reduction and a period of 90 days 
expires.

Section 2863--Prohibition on Naming Department of Defense Real Property 
                       after a Member of Congress

    This section would amend section 2661 of title 10, United 
States Code, and prohibit the naming of Department of Defense 
real property after any individual, who is a Member of 
Congress, at the time the property is so named.

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $18.1 billion for atomic 
energy defense activities, an increase of 2.1 percent from the 
amount requested for fiscal year 2011. Of this amount, $11.8 
billion is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) and $6.3 billion is for environmental and 
other defense activities.
    For NNSA programs, the budget request contained an increase 
of $568.2 million above the amount requested for fiscal year 
2011. This amount includes a $620.9 million increase for the 
Weapons Activities account, which supports the management and 
stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and a $137.7 
million decrease for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
account. The budget request for the Defense Environmental 
Cleanup account contained a decrease of $181.3 million from the 
amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
    The committee supports these requests and believes that the 
budget request for Department of Energy National Security 
Programs for fiscal year 2012 reflects an appropriately 
balanced approach to meeting the diverse missions encompassed 
within the atomic energy defense activities account.
    The committee recommends $18.1 billion, the amount of the 
budget request.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $11.8 billion for the programs 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 
2012. The committee recommends $11.8 billion, the amount of the 
budget request.

                         Nuclear Modernization

    The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is framed by several 
noteworthy events and key policy and posture documents released 
in the last few years.
    The President's vision for ``a world without nuclear 
weapons,'' which he outlined in an April 2009 speech in Prague, 
Czech Republic, along with his emphasis on arms control, 
changes in U.S. nuclear policy and posture, and direction to 
review further U.S. nuclear force reductions, has led to a 
renewed focus within the executive and legislative branches on 
nuclear security matters.
    The bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic 
Posture of the United States, established by section 1062 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181), prefaced its May 2009 final report by 
stating that, ``The conditions that might make possible the 
global elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today and 
their creation would require a fundamental transformation of 
the world political order.'' The committee agrees and, 
elsewhere in this Act, recommends a sense of Congress that 
further reductions should be supported by thorough assessments 
and guided by specific criteria.
    Furthermore, while the Commission advised against 
substantial unilateral U.S. nuclear force reductions, it did 
conclude that U.S. reliance on reserve warheads could be 
reduced so long as the nuclear infrastructure was refurbished. 
To this point, the Commission found that, ``the physical 
infrastructure is in serious need of transformation . . . but 
[NNSA] lacks the needed funding,'' and that, ``the intellectual 
infrastructure is in more serious trouble.''
    The Commission further observed that the ``United States 
requires a stockpile of nuclear weapons that is safe, secure, 
and reliable, and whose threatened use in military conflict 
would be credible.'' However, the Commission went on to state 
that, ``maintaining the reliability of the warheads as they age 
is an increasing challenge,'' and that the life extension 
program (LEP) ``is becoming increasingly difficult to continue 
within the constraints of a rigid adherence to original 
materials and design as the stockpile continues to age.'' The 
three directors of the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories 
have registered similar concerns in correspondence with the 
committee to address an unclassified finding in a JASON study 
which found that ``no evidence that accumulation of changes 
incurred from aging and LEPs have increased risk to 
certification of today's deployed nuclear warheads.'' One lab 
director noted that, ``Thus far we have been able to retain 
confidence in warhead safety and reliability by offsetting 
these increased uncertainties with corresponding increases in 
performance margins . . . or by relaxing and eliminating (in 
coordination with the Department of Defense) military 
requirements. Options to further improve these margins using 
techniques similar to those employed to date have largely been 
exhausted.''
    Addressing these concerns, and in the context of the 
ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New 
START), the President made a significant commitment to the 
modernization of the nation's nuclear stockpile and 
infrastructure.
    The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review called for making 
much-needed investments to rebuild the nation's aging nuclear 
infrastructure, maintaining that a credible modernization plan 
would ``enable further arms reductions.''
    The May 2010 NNSA Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan 
provides further detail on NNSA modernization plans, to include 
plans for stockpile stewardship, life extension programs, 
facility upgrades and construction, and sustainment of science, 
technology, and engineering capabilities to ensure the nuclear 
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without nuclear 
explosive testing. It also describes specific modernization 
milestones and baseline capabilities that must be established, 
such as a capacity to manufacture up to 80 pits and 80 canned 
subassemblies per year and fabricate up to 500 high explosive 
hemispheres per year, that will ``enable further reductions in 
the stockpile over time.''
    The Secretary of Defense committed to transferring over 
$8.0 billion from the Department of Defense to NNSA in fiscal 
years 2013 through 2016 to support nuclear modernization. 
Similarly, a May 2010 report to Congress on nuclear force 
structure and modernization plans, which was required by 
section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) (``Section 1251 Report''), 
noted a nearly 10-percent increase in the President's fiscal 
year 2011 budget request for stockpile sustainment and 
infrastructure over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. In 
a November 2010 update to the Section 1251 Report, the 
President committed to an additional nine-percent increase in 
his fiscal year 2012 budget request for NNSA weapons activities 
over the fiscal year 2011 requested level, and a total increase 
of $4.1 billion across the Future Years Nuclear Security 
Program (FYNSP) over the fiscal year 2011 FYNSP.
    The updated Section 1251 Report noted that, ``Given the 
extremely tight budget environment facing the federal 
government, these requests to the Congress demonstrate the 
priority the Administration places on maintaining the safety, 
security and effectiveness of the deterrent.''
    The committee commends this commitment and is encouraged by 
the fiscal year 2012 budget request for NNSA. On a bipartisan 
basis, the committee has expressed its support for nuclear 
modernization and the increased investments necessary to carry 
it out. The committee believes there is a direct linkage 
between such modernization and consideration of any further 
reductions. Members of the Senate have also made clear that 
their support for the nuclear force reductions in New START was 
directly linked to the modernization of NNSA's nuclear weapons 
facilities and the nuclear arsenal.
    However, the committee also recognizes that continued 
progress on nuclear modernization requires the long-term 
commitment of both the executive and legislative branches of 
government. The committee acknowledges the demands that such 
significant investments will place on the nation's budget, 
particularly in challenging economic times, but it also knows 
that these crucial national security activities cannot be 
deferred any longer without increasing the risk to the safety, 
security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent.
    Lastly, the committee notes that the committee report 
accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 34) states that the resolution seeks to ``prioritiz[e] the 
nuclear modernization work of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. This includes providing fiscal space for the 
modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and in connection 
with the implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty with Russia.'' Consistent with this position, the 
committee reaffirms its belief that nuclear modernization is a 
national priority and elsewhere in this title recommends 
authorizing the full amount of the fiscal year 2012 request for 
NNSA.

                           Weapons Activities

    The budget request contained $7.6 billion for the Weapons 
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) for fiscal year 2012, an increase of $620.9 million 
above the amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
    In May 2009, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic 
Posture of the United States reported that the ``Stockpile 
Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program (LEP) have 
been remarkably successful in refurbishing and modernizing the 
stockpile.'' But at the same time, the Commission concluded 
that these strategies ``cannot be counted on for the indefinite 
future.'' The Commission noted that the NNSA's ``physical 
infrastructure is in serious need of transformation'' and that 
the ``intellectual infrastructure is also in trouble.''
    The JASON scientific advisory panel report from September 
2009 noted: ``All options for extending the life of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile rely on the continuing maintenance and 
renewal of expertise and capabilities in science, technology, 
engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons 
program.'' The JASON panel concluded that ``this expertise is 
threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of 
mission importance, and degradation of the work environment.''
    In its April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the 
Administration recognized these critical problems, saying, ``In 
order to sustain a safe, secure, and effective U.S. nuclear 
stockpile as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States 
must possess a modern physical infrastructure--comprised of the 
national security laboratories and a complex of supporting 
facilities--and a highly capable workforce with the specialized 
skills needed to sustain the nuclear deterrent.'' The NPR 
outlined several proposed investments to improve both the 
physical infrastructure and the human capital needed to sustain 
the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee is encouraged by 
these statements, and supports the vision for a reinvigorated 
nuclear security enterprise.
    The committee welcomes the robust budget request for 
Weapons Activities for fiscal year 2012, which should enable 
NNSA to continue modernizing its physical infrastructure and 
strengthening its human capital. However, the committee notes 
that these challenges can only be overcome through long-term 
program and budget stability. In its November 2010 update to 
the report required by section 1251 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the 
President stated his plan to increase funding for Weapons 
Activities across the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program 
(FYNSP), from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2016, by more 
than $4.1 billion beyond that planned in his original May 2010 
report. However, the November 2010 update also stated that 
these FYNSP funding levels ``are appropriately called 
`projections''' and are ``not a `fixed in stone' judgment.'' 
The committee notes these caveats with concern, and encourages 
the President to sustain these critical investments in the 
nuclear security enterprise for future years.
    The committee recommends $7.6 billion for Weapons 
Activities, the amount of the budget request.

Stockpile Stewardship

    The committee views execution of the Stockpile Stewardship 
Program (SSP) as the first component of the core national 
security mission of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA). The SSP utilizes data from previous 
nuclear explosive tests, unique experimental tools, advanced 
simulation and computing capabilities, and the world's foremost 
scientists, engineers, and technicians to assess and certify 
the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons 
without additional nuclear explosive testing. The SSP enables 
NNSA to better understand the science of how nuclear weapons 
work, predict and identify problems in the stockpile, and 
respond quickly to emerging threats.
    In the past, the committee has expressed concern about 
NNSA's ability to fully utilize the new experimental 
capabilities that it has developed over the past decade. Such 
experiments are critical to the long-term management of the 
stockpile because specific areas of remaining uncertainty about 
the performance of our nuclear weapons can only be illuminated 
through scientific experiments using these capabilities. The 
committee believes the budget request for the SSP should be 
sufficient to properly utilize all experimental capabilities 
and to continue improving the nation's ability to certify the 
nuclear weapons stockpile without additional nuclear explosive 
testing.

Stockpile Management

    The committee views execution of the Stockpile Management 
Program (SMP) as the second component of the core national 
security mission of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA). Through the SMP, NNSA sustains the 
nuclear weapons stockpile and ensures our nuclear weapons are 
safe, secure, and reliable. Development and execution of the 
SMP was required by section 3113 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), 
which also prescribed objectives and limitations for the 
program.
    The SMP includes surveillance of weapons and weapon 
components in the stockpile, non-nuclear testing, production 
and exchange of limited life components, dismantlement of 
retired weapons, and many other important activities. However, 
the key aspects of the SMP are the Life Extension Programs 
(LEPs), which seek to extend the life of existing weapon types 
while improving their safety and security. For fiscal year 
2012, the budget request included the following objectives 
regarding LEPs: continuing the W76-1 LEP, producing enough W76-
1 warheads to meet U.S. Navy requirements; initiating a B61-12 
LEP, moving from the current feasibility study (phase 6.2/2A) 
into development engineering activities (phase 6.3); and 
continuing a life extension study for the W78 by beginning the 
phase 6.2/2A feasibility study, to include examining the 
feasibility of a common W78/W88 warhead.
    The committee supports these activities, and encourages 
NNSA to consider the full spectrum of options for managing the 
nuclear weapons stockpile, as identified by the Congressional 
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States in 
their May 2009 report. The NNSA laboratories should thoroughly 
evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, all options for managing and 
extending the life of any particular weapon system.
    Furthermore, the committee encourages NNSA to plan and 
execute the SMP such that the scientists, engineers, and 
technicians employed in all parts of the nuclear security 
enterprise are actively engaged in challenging work that 
continually utilizes their skill sets in meaningful ways. The 
committee also encourages NNSA to structure the SMP to ensure 
that no critical capabilities go unutilized for extended 
periods of time, and therefore atrophy.

Directed Stockpile Work

    The budget request contained $2.0 billion for Directed 
Stockpile Work (DSW), an increase of $65.2 million above the 
amount requested for fiscal year 2011. DSW includes a variety 
of activities related to stockpile management and stockpile 
stewardship, including life extension programs, stockpile 
system surveillance and maintenance, testing and experiments, 
component manufacturing, and weapons dismantlement and 
disposition.
    The committee recommends $2.0 billion for Directed 
Stockpile Work, the amount of the budget request.

B61 Phase 6.3 Life Extension Program

    The budget request contained $223.6 million for Directed 
Stockpile Work for the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP). This 
funding request is new, and would establish the B61 LEP as a 
full program.
    The request would fund phase 6.3 development engineering 
activities for the B61 LEP, including: development of designs 
and maturation of technologies for various components; 
implementation of enhanced surety technologies; qualification 
and certification testing of components and systems; systems 
engineering for integrating the B61 with modern aircraft such 
as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and consolidation of several 
versions of the B61 (the B61-3, -4, and -7) into a single 
version (the B61-12). The committee understands that the 
Nuclear Weapons Council plans to meet at the end of 2011 to 
determine whether the B61 LEP is ready to enter phase 6.3.
    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) expects 
to deliver the first production unit (FPU) of the B61-12 in 
fiscal year 2017. Due to prior delays, the NNSA is operating on 
a compressed schedule to meet the FPU timeline. The committee 
understands the importance of meeting the 2017 delivery date, 
and fully supports the B61 LEP. However, the committee is 
concerned about the scope of technology maturation planned for 
this program and the impact such activities may have on an 
already aggressive schedule. Furthermore, the committee is 
concerned that total costs for the program may grow as NNSA 
attempts to meet its 2017 FPU deadline. The committee will 
continue to conduct rigorous oversight of this important 
program, and expects the NNSA Administrator to keep the 
committee fully informed of any expected deviations from the 
schedule and baseline cost estimate, once such estimate is 
established.

Science Campaign

    The budget request contained $405.9 million for the Science 
Campaign, an increase of $40.7 million above the amount 
requested for fiscal year 2011. The Science Campaign is a 
critical component of stockpile stewardship, and provides the 
tools, experiments, and human capital needed to increase our 
knowledge of nuclear weapons science and assess and certify the 
safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile in the 
absence of nuclear explosive testing. The fiscal year 2012 
budget request for the Science Campaign will enable continued 
experiments to provide data for predictive computer models, 
enhance methodologies used for certification and assessment of 
margins and uncertainties, and meet various deliverables and 
milestones to support life extension program timelines.
    The committee recommends $405.9 million for the Science 
Campaign, the amount of the budget request.

Engineering Campaign

    The budget request contained $143.1 million for the 
Engineering Campaign, an increase of $1.2 million above the 
amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
    The Engineering Campaign provides the engineering basis, 
tools, and capabilities to assess and certify the stockpile 
throughout the lifecycle of nuclear weapons. Engineering 
Campaign activities include development of options for 
improving safety and security of nuclear weapons in future life 
extension programs, development of tools for designing and 
qualifying weapons and weapon components in hostile 
environments, and development of advanced diagnostics for 
identifying and predicting component aging issues.
    The committee recommends $143.1 million for the Engineering 
Campaign, the amount of the budget request.

Readiness Campaign

    The budget request contained $142.5 million for the 
Readiness Campaign, an increase of $30.4 million above the 
amount requested for fiscal year 2011. Readiness Campaign 
activities include the production of tritium for use in the 
nuclear weapons stockpile and the selection and maturation of 
production technologies for manufacturing components of nuclear 
weapons.
    For fiscal year 2012, the budget request aligns all funding 
for the Readiness Campaign into two programs that focus on 
tritium production and non-nuclear component manufacturing 
technologies. The committee is concerned that, should life 
extension programs not proceed on the planned schedule, 
important activities formerly funded by the Readiness Campaign 
will be neglected and critical capabilities will atrophy. The 
committee encourages the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to ensure that such capabilities, such as 
the enhancement of production technologies for high explosives, 
receive appropriate attention.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee expressed concern that the NNSA had not identified 
effective technical solutions for increased tritium production 
nor viable alternative supplies. The committee notes that NNSA 
plans to increase its production of tritium in fiscal year 
2012, but has still not resolved certain major technical 
challenges associated with tritium permeation in the production 
process. The committee is concerned by an October 2010 report 
by the Government Accountability Office that found that ``NNSA 
currently meets the nuclear weapons stockpile requirements for 
tritium, but its ability to do so in the future is in doubt.'' 
To ensure required supplies of tritium remain available in the 
future, the committee supports the requested increase in funds 
for tritium production and associated research to resolve the 
ongoing technical challenges, and will continue to conduct 
vigorous oversight of NNSA's progress in this area.
    The committee recommends $142.5 million for the Readiness 
Campaign, the amount of the budget request.

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign

    The budget request contained $476.3 million for the 
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High-Yield 
Campaign, a decrease of $5.3 million below the amount requested 
for fiscal year 2011.
    Activities in the ICF Ignition and High-Yield Campaign 
support development of enhanced understanding of high energy 
density environments, a critical aspect of nuclear explosions. 
ICF experiments conducted at a variety of facilities are used 
to inform and validate theoretical models used to assess and 
certify the stockpile without nuclear explosive testing.
    Early in fiscal year 2012, the National Ignition Facility 
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will attempt, for the 
first time, to demonstrate ignition in a laboratory 
environment. Achieving ignition would provide important, 
previously unavailable, experimental data to support assessment 
and certification of the stockpile, and would be a major 
advance in nuclear science.
    The committee recommends $476.3 million for the Inertial 
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign, the amount 
of the budget request.

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

    The budget request contained $628.9 million for the 
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign, an increase 
of $13.2 million above the amount requested for fiscal year 
2011.
    The ASC Campaign provides the simulation and computing 
capability needed to validate and certify the nuclear weapons 
stockpile in the absence of nuclear explosive testing. As 
experiments are conducted under various other campaigns, the 
data from those experiments is used to refine simulation codes 
developed under the ASC Campaign. As the experiments, computing 
infrastructure, and simulation codes are concurrently improved, 
confidence in the ability to predict weapon performance, and 
potential problems, should also improve. Elsewhere in this 
title, the committee notes its support for the new strategic 
investments by the National Nuclear Security Administration and 
the Department of Energy in research and development of ``exa-
scale'' computing.
    The committee recommends $628.9 million for the Advanced 
Simulation and Computing Campaign, the amount of the budget 
request.

Exa-scale computing at the Department of Energy and National Nuclear 
        Security Administration National Laboratories

    To maintain our economic and national security, the 
committee believes that the United States must continue to be 
at the forefront of high-performance computing technology. The 
committee is encouraged by recent progress in developing and 
deploying ``peta-scale'' computing at the Department of Energy 
(DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
national laboratories.
    The budget request includes new strategic investments in 
research and development of ``exa-scale'' computing: $90.0 
million through the DOE Office of Science and $36.0 million 
through the NNSA Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. 
The committee believes these investments in next generation 
computing systems are critical to the nation, and will not only 
help ensure the long-term viability of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile in the absence of nuclear explosive testing, but will 
also support important technology innovation for the broader 
economy.
    The committee believes the United States must continue its 
leadership in developing and utilizing state-of-the-art 
supercomputers, and notes with concern the recent surge of the 
People's Republic of China in the field of high performance 
computing. In particular, the committee notes China's 
deployment of the world's first and third fastest 
supercomputers in rankings published in November 2010, while 
the NNSA laboratories did not have a machine in the top five of 
these rankings for the first time in 20 years.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

    The budget request contained $2.3 billion for Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), an increase of $477.2 
million above the amount requested for fiscal year 2011.
    RTBF supports the physical infrastructure and operational 
readiness of the nuclear security enterprise. RTBF funds are 
divided between Operations and Maintenance, and Construction 
programs. The RTBF program is aligned with and provides 
resources to support the execution of all other programs of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including 
Directed Stockpile Work, the Campaigns, and Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation.
    The committee has previously noted its concern regarding 
funding to support the operations and maintenance of facilities 
at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, and the Y-12 Plant in 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The committee appreciates the increase in 
funds for both facilities in the budget request to support the 
increased workload at both plants associated with increases in 
life extension program production rates, surveillance, and 
dismantlement activities. The committee also notes the increase 
in funds provided for material recycle and recovery to support 
a similar workload increase.
    The budget request for RTBF included funds for the two 
largest ongoing NNSA infrastructure projects: $300.0 million 
for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility 
at Los Alamos National Laboratory and $160.2 million for the 
Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security 
Complex. Elsewhere in this title, the committee discusses its 
concerns regarding these important projects, including the 
continuing cost increases and schedule delays associated with 
them. The committee recommends $2.3 billion for Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities, the amount of the budget 
request.
            Report on project management for large-scale construction 
                    programs
    The committee believes that successful, efficient, and 
timely completion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Building Replacement (CMRR) at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-
12 National Security Complex are critical to the long-term 
sustainability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee 
is concerned that, given its history regarding management of 
large-scale construction projects, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) may encounter significant 
difficulty in managing and executing these programs to build 
two large, and wholly unique, nuclear facilities 
simultaneously.
    The committee notes with concern the large cost growth and 
schedule delays of both of these programs as they have advanced 
in the design process. With the designs for UPF and the major 
nuclear component of CMRR only 45 percent complete, expected 
total project costs for constructing the facilities have 
increased several times over compared to original estimates. 
The original 2004 maximum cost estimate for CMRR was less than 
$1.0 billion; the current expected maximum cost for CMRR, based 
on the 45 percent complete design of the nuclear facility, has 
increased dramatically to over $6.0 billion. Similarly, the 
expected maximum cost for UPF has increased from $3.5 billion 
in 2007 to $6.5 billion today. As discussed in documents 
accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget request, NNSA will not 
determine full baseline costs for these facilities until their 
designs are 90 percent complete. The committee agrees with this 
decision to establish a mature design before full cost 
estimates are developed, and expects NNSA to avoid concurrent 
design and construction for these facilities.
    The committee recognizes the one-of-a-kind nature of these 
facilities and the difficulties in estimating their costs and 
schedules in conceptual phases. However, the dramatic increases 
in the expected costs of these facilities, coupled with their 
importance to sustaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent, 
demonstrate the need for strong oversight of the project 
management approach taken by NNSA for constructing these 
facilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for 
Nuclear Security to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees, by March 15, 2012, on NNSA's approach to 
cons