Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009/Division A/Title II

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

== TITLE II — RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ==

Contents

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations[edit]

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.[edit]

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2009 for the use of the Department of Defense for research, development, test, and evaluation as follows:

(1) For the Army, $10,943,840,000.
(2) For the Navy, $19,345,603,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $26,289,508,000.
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $21,131,501,000, of which $188,772,000 is authorized for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.[edit]

(a) Fiscal Year 2009- Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 201, $11,799,660,000 shall be available for the Defense Science and Technology Program, including basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development projects.
(b) Basic Research, Applied Research, and Advanced Technology Development Defined- For purposes of this section, the term `basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development' means work funded in programs elements for defense research and development under Department of Defense budget activity 1, 2, or 3.

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations[edit]

SEC. 211. ADDITIONAL DETERMINATIONS TO BE MADE AS PART OF FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS MILESTONE REVIEW.[edit]

Section 214(b) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2123) is amended by striking paragraphs (4) through (6) and inserting the following new paragraphs:

`(4) Whether actual demonstrations, rather than simulations, have shown that the software for the program is on a path to achieve threshold requirements on cost and schedule.
`(5) Whether the program's planned major communications network demonstrations are sufficiently complex and realistic to inform major program decision points.
`(6) The extent to which Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicle survivability is likely to be reduced in a degraded Future Combat Systems communications network environment.
`(7) The level of network degradation at which Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicle crew survivability is significantly reduced.
`(8) The extent to which the Future Combat Systems communications network is capable of withstanding network attack, jamming, or other interference.
`(9) What the cost estimate for the program is, including all spin outs, and an assessment of the confidence level for that estimate.
`(10) What the affordability assessment for the program is, given projected Army budgets, based on the cost estimate referred to in paragraph (9).'.

SEC. 212. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND SOFTWARE.[edit]

(a) Report Required- Not later than September 30, 2009, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the Future Combat Systems communications network and software. The report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the vulnerability of the Future Combat Systems communications network and software to enemy network attack, in particular the effect of the use of significant amounts of commercial software in Future Combat Systems software.
(2) An assessment of the vulnerability of the Future Combat Systems communications network to electronic warfare, jamming, and other potential enemy interference.
(3) An assessment of the vulnerability of the Future Combat Systems communications network to adverse weather and complex terrain.
(4) An assessment of the Future Combat Systems communication network's dependence on satellite communications support, and an assessment of the network's performance in the absence of assumed levels of satellite communications support.
(5) An assessment of the performance of the Future Combat Systems communications network when operating in a degraded condition due to the factors analyzed in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), and how such a degraded network environment would affect the performance of Future Combat Systems brigades and the survivability of Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles.
(6) An assessment, developed in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, of the adequacy of the Future Combat Systems communications network testing schedule.
(7) An assessment, developed in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, of the synchronization of the funding, schedule, and technology maturity of the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical and Joint Tactical Radio System programs in relation to the Future Combat Systems program, including any planned Future Combat Systems spin outs.
(b) Form- The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 213. FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS MANNED GROUND VEHICLE SELECTED ACQUISITION REPORTS.[edit]

(a) Report Required- Not later than February 15 of each of the years 2009 through 2015, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a Selected Acquisition Report under section 2432 of title 10, United States Code, to Congress for each Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicle variant.
(b) Required Elements- Each report required by subsection (a) shall include the same information required in comprehensive annual Selected Acquisition Reports under section 2432(c) of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Definition- In this section, the term `manned ground vehicle variant' means--
(1) the eight distinct variants of manned ground vehicles designated on pages seven and eight of the Future Combat Systems Selected Acquisition Report of the Department of Defense dated December 31, 2007; and
(2) any additional manned ground vehicle variants designated in Future Combat Systems Acquisition Reports of the Department of Defense after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 214. SEPARATE PROCUREMENT AND RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION LINE ITEMS AND PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR SKY WARRIOR UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS PROJECT.[edit]

Effective for fiscal year 2010 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, in the annual budget submission of the Department of Defense to the President, within both the account for procurement and the account for research, development, test, and evaluation, a separate, dedicated line item and program element is designated for the Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial Systems project, to the extent such accounts include funding for such project.

SEC. 215. RESTRICTION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR THE WARFIGHTER INFORMATION NETWORK-TACTICAL PROGRAM.[edit]

(a) Notification Required- Not later than five days after the completion of all actions described in subsection (b), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall submit to the congressional defense committees notice in writing of such completion.
(b) Covered Actions- An action described in this subsection is any of the following:
(1) Approval by the Under Secretary of a new acquisition program baseline for the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 3 program (in this section referred to as the `WIN-T Increment 3 program').
(2) Completion of the independent cost estimate for the WIN-T Increment 3 program by the Cost Analysis Improvement Group, as required by the June 5, 2007, recertification by the Under Secretary.
(3) Completion of the technology readiness assessment of the WIN-T Increment 3 program by the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, as required by the June 5, 2007, recertification by the Under Secretary.
(c) Restriction on Obligation of Funds Pending Notification- Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act or otherwise made available for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, for fiscal year 2009 for the WIN-T Increment 3 program, not more than 50 percent of those amounts may be obligated or expended until 15 days after the date on which the notification required by subsection (a) is received by the congressional defense committees.

SEC. 216. LIMITATION ON SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT EXPENDITURES.[edit]

(a) Limitation- Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year thereafter for the Army or the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force may fund relevant expenditures for the Joint Cargo Aircraft only through amounts made available for procurement or for research, development, test, and evaluation.
(b) Relevant Expenditures for the Joint Cargo Aircraft Defined- In this section, the term `relevant expenditures for the Joint Cargo Aircraft' means expenditures relating to--
(1) support equipment;
(2) initial spares;
(3) training simulators;
(4) systems engineering and management; and
(5) post-production modifications.

SEC. 217. REQUIREMENT FOR PLAN ON OVERHEAD NONIMAGING INFRARED SYSTEMS.[edit]

(a) In General- The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall develop a comprehensive plan to conduct and support research, development, and demonstration of technologies that could evolve into the next generation of overhead nonimaging infrared systems.
(b) Elements- The plan required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) The research objectives to be achieved under the plan.
(2) A description of the research, development, and demonstration activities under the plan.
(3) An estimate of the duration of the research, development, and demonstration of technologies under the plan.
(4) The cost and duration of any flight or on-orbit demonstrations of the technologies being developed.
(5) A plan for implementing any acquisition programs with respect to technologies determined to be successful under the plan.
(6) An identification of the date by which a decision must be made to begin any follow-on programs and a justification for the date identified.
(7) A schedule for completion of a full analysis of the on-orbit performance characteristics of the Space-Based Infrared System and the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, and an assessment of how the performance characteristics of such systems will inform the decision to proceed to a next generation overhead nonimaging infrared system.
(c) Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure of Funds for Third Generation Infrared Surveillance Program- Not more than 50 percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2009 by section 201(3) for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force and available for the Third Generation Infrared Surveillance program may be obligated or expended until the date that is 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress the plan required by subsection (a).

SEC. 218. ADVANCED ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING.[edit]

(a) Roadmap Required- The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy, and service acquisition executives, shall, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, develop a multi-year roadmap to develop advanced energy storage technologies and sustain domestic advanced energy storage technology manufacturing capabilities and an assured supply chain necessary to ensure that the Department of Defense has assured access to advanced energy storage technologies to support current military requirements and emerging military needs.
(b) Elements- The roadmap required by subsection (a) shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) An identification of current and future capability gaps, performance enhancements, cost savings goals, and assured technology access goals that require advances in energy storage technology and manufacturing capabilities.
(2) Specific research, technology, and manufacturing goals and milestones, and timelines and estimates of funding necessary for achieving such goals and milestones.
(3) A summary of applications for energy storage technologies by the Department of Defense and, for each type of application, an assessment of the demand for such technologies, in terms of quantity and military need.
(4) Specific mechanisms for coordinating the activities of Federal agencies, State and local governments, coalition partners, private industry, and academia covered by the roadmap.
(5) Such other matters as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy consider appropriate for purposes of the roadmap.
(c) Coordination-
(1) IN GENERAL- The roadmap required by subsection (a) shall be developed in coordination with the military departments, appropriate Defense Agencies and other elements and organizations of the Department of Defense, other appropriate Federal, State, and local government organizations, and appropriate representatives of private industry and academia.
(2) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that appropriate elements and organizations of the Department of Defense provide such information and other support as is required for the development of the roadmap.
(d) Submittal to Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees the roadmap required by subsection (a) not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Advanced Energy Storage Technology Initiative Investment Summary- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the expenditures for energy storage technologies within the Department of Defense, Defense Agencies, and military departments, for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the projected expenditures for such technologies for fiscal year 2010.

SEC. 219. MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR DEFENSE LABORATORIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR MILITARY MISSIONS.[edit]

(a) Mechanisms to Provide Funds-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, shall establish mechanisms under which the director of a defense laboratory may use an amount of funds equal to not more than three percent of all funds available to the defense laboratory for the following purposes:
(A) To fund innovative basic and applied research that is conducted at the defense laboratory and supports military missions.
(B) To fund development programs that support the transition of technologies developed by the defense laboratory into operational use.
(C) To fund workforce development activities that improve the capacity of the defense laboratory to recruit and retain personnel with needed scientific and engineering expertise.
(2) CONSULTATION REQUIRED- The mechanisms established under paragraph (1) shall provide that funding shall be used under paragraph (1) at the discretion of the director of a defense laboratory in consultation with the science and technology executive of the military department concerned.
(b) Annual Report on Use of Authority-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the use of the authority under subsection (a) during the preceding year.
(2) ELEMENTS- Each report under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the year covered by such report, the following:
(A) A description of the mechanisms used to provide funding under subsection (a)(1).
(B) A statement of the amount of funding made available to each defense laboratory for research described under such subsection.
(C) A description of the investments made by each defense laboratory using funds under such subsection.
(D) A description and assessment of any improvements in the performance of the defense laboratories as a result of investments under such subsection.
(E) A description and assessment of the contributions to the development of needed military capabilities provided by research using funds under such subsection.
(F) A description of any modification to the mechanisms under subsection (a) that would improve the efficacy of the authority under such subsection to support military missions.
(c) Sunset- The authority under subsection (a) shall expire on October 1, 2013.

SEC. 220. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AIRBORNE INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.[edit]

(a) In General- Except as provided pursuant to subsection (b), effective as of October 1, 2012, each airborne intelligence collection system of the Department of Defense that is connected to the Distributed Common Ground/Surface System shall have the capability to operate with the Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting System.
(b) Exceptions- The requirement in subsection (a) with respect to a particular airborne intelligence collection system may be waived by the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council under section 181 of title 10, United States Code. Waivers under this subsection shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

SEC. 221. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR ENHANCED AN/TPQ-36 RADAR SYSTEM PENDING SUBMISSION OF REPORT.[edit]

Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to section 201(1) of this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2009 for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, for the Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 radar system, not more than 70 percent of the amounts remaining unobligated as of the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated until the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense committees a report describing the plan to transition the Counter-Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars program to a program of record.

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs[edit]

SEC. 231. ANNUAL DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CHARACTERIZATION OF OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, SUITABILITY, AND SURVIVABILITY OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.[edit]

(a) Annual Characterization- Section 232(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph (2):
`(2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall also each year characterize the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the ballistic missile defense system, and its elements, that have been fielded or tested before the end of the preceding fiscal year.'; and
(3) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by inserting `and the characterization under paragraph (2)' after `the assessment under paragraph (1)'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The heading of such section is amended to read as follows: `Annual OT&E Assessment and Characterization of Certain Ballistic Missile Defense Matters- '.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.

SEC. 232. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF BOOST-PHASE MISSILE DEFENSE.[edit]

(a) Study- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent study of concepts and systems for boost-phase missile defense.
(b) Elements-
(1) CONTENT- The study required by subsection (a) shall address the following:
(A) The extent to which boost-phase missile defense is technically feasible and practical.
(B) Whether any demonstration efforts by the Department of Defense of boost-phase missile defense technology existing as of the date of the study (including the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor) have a high probability of performing a boost-phase missile defense mission in an operationally effective, suitable, and survivable manner.
(2) SYSTEMS TO BE EXAMINED- The study required by subsection (a) shall examine each of the following systems:
(A) The Airborne Laser.
(B) The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (land-based and sea-based options).
(C) Other existing boost-phase technology demonstration programs.
(3) FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED- The study shall evaluate each system identified in paragraph (2) based on the following factors:
(A) Technical capability of the system against scenarios identified in paragraph (4).
(B) Operational issues, including operational effectiveness.
(C) The results of key milestone tests conducted prior to preparation of the report under subsection (c).
(D) Survivability.
(E) Suitability.
(F) Concept of operations, including basing considerations.
(G) Operations and maintenance support.
(H) Command and control considerations, including timelines for detection, decision-making, and engagement.
(I) Shortfall from intercepts.
(J) Force structure requirements.
(K) Effectiveness against countermeasures.
(L) Estimated cost of sustaining the system in the field.
(M) Reliability, availability, and maintainability.
(N) Geographic considerations, including limitations on the ability to deploy systems within operational range of potential targets.
(O) Cost and cost-effectiveness, including total lifecycle cost estimates.
(4) SCENARIOS TO BE ASSESSED- The study shall include an assessment of each system identified in paragraph (2) regarding the performance and operational capabilities of the system--
(A) to counter short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missile threats from rogue states to the deployed forces of the United States and its allies; and
(B) to defend the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack.
(5) COMPARISON WITH NON-BOOST SYSTEMS- The study shall include an assessment of the performance and operational capabilities of non-boost missile defense systems to counter the scenarios identified in paragraph (4). The results under this paragraph shall be compared to the results under paragraph (4). For purposes of this paragraph, non-boost missile defense systems include--
(A) the Patriot PAC-3 system and the Medium Extended Air Defense System follow-on system;
(B) the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, with all variants of the Standard Missile-3 interceptor;
(C) the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system; and
(D) the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.
(c) Report-
(1) IN GENERAL- Upon the completion of the study required by subsection (a), but not later than October 31, 2010, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees a report on the study. The report shall include such recommendations regarding the future direction of the boost-phase ballistic missile defense programs of the United States as the Academy considers appropriate.
(2) FORM- The report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
(d) Funding- Of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $3,500,000 may be available to conduct the study required by subsection (a).
(e) Cooperation From Government- In carrying out the study, the National Academy of Sciences shall receive the full and timely cooperation of the Secretary of Defense and any other Federal Government official in providing the Academy with analyses, briefings, and other information necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibilities.

SEC. 233. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSES IN EUROPE.[edit]

(a) General Limitation- No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year thereafter may be obligated or expended for procurement, site activation, construction, preparation of equipment for, or deployment of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the following conditions have been met:
(1) In the case of the proposed midcourse radar element of such missile defense system, the host nation has signed and ratified the missile defense basing agreement and status of forces agreement that allow for the stationing in such nation of the radar and personnel to carry out the proposed deployment.
(2) In the case of the proposed long-range missile defense interceptor site element of such missile defense system--
(A) the condition in paragraph (1) has been met; and
(B) the host nation has signed and ratified the missile defense basing agreement and status of forces agreement that allow for the stationing in such nation of the interceptor site and personnel to carry out the proposed deployment.
(3) In the case of either element of such missile defense system described in paragraph (1) or (2), 45 days have elapsed following the receipt by the congressional defense committees of the report required by section 226(c)(6) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 42).
(b) Additional Limitation- In addition to the limitation in subsection (a), no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 may be obligated or expended for the acquisition (other than initial long-lead procurement) or deployment of operational missiles of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense committees a report certifying that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as part of such missile defense system has demonstrated, through successful, operationally realistic flight testing, a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission.
(c) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit continuing obligation and expenditure of funds for missile defense, including for research and development and for other activities not otherwise limited by subsection (a) or (b), including, but not limited to, site surveys, studies, analysis, and planning and design for the proposed missile defense deployment in Europe.

SEC. 234. REVIEW OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY AND STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES.[edit]

(a) Review Required- The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States.
(b) Elements- The matters addressed by the review required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) The ballistic missile defense policy of the United States in relation to the overall national security policy of the United States.
(2) The ballistic missile defense strategy and objectives of the United States in relation to the national security strategy of the United States and the military strategy of the United States.
(3) The ballistic missile threat to the United States, deployed forces of the United States, and friends and allies of the United States from short, medium, intermediate, and long-range ballistic missile threats.
(4) The organization, discharge, and oversight of acquisition for the ballistic missile defense programs of the United States.
(5) The roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, defense agencies, combatant commands, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the military departments in such programs.
(6) The process for determining requirements for missile defense capabilities under such programs, including input from the joint military requirements process.
(7) The process for determining the force structure and inventory objectives for such programs.
(8) Standards for the military utility, operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the ballistic missile defense systems of the United States.
(9) The method in which resources for the ballistic missile defense mission are planned, programmed, and budgeted within the Department of Defense.
(10) The near-term and long-term affordability and cost-effectiveness of such programs.
(11) The objectives, requirements, and standards for test and evaluation with respect to such programs.
(12) Accountability, transparency, and oversight with respect to such programs.
(13) The role of international cooperation on missile defense in the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States.
(14) Any other matters the Secretary determines relevant.
(c) Report-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than January 31, 2010, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the results of the review required by subsection (a).
(2) FORM- The report required by this subsection shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 235. AIRBORNE LASER SYSTEM.[edit]

(a) Report on Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Assessment of Testing- Not later than January 15, 2010, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall--
(1) review and evaluate the testing conducted on the first Airborne Laser System aircraft, including the planned shoot-down demonstration testing; and
(2) submit to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress an assessment by the Director of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Airborne Laser System.
(b) Limitation on Availability of Funds for Later Airborne Laser System Aircraft- No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the procurement of a second or subsequent aircraft for the Airborne Laser System program until the later of the following dates:
(1) The date on which the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the assessment under subsection (a)(2), submits to Congress a certification that the Airborne Laser System has demonstrated, through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable.
(2) The date that is 60 days after the date on which Congress receives the independent assessment of boost-phase missile defense required by section 232.

SEC. 236. ACTIVATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF AN/TPY-2 FORWARD-BASED X-BAND RADAR.[edit]

(a) Availability of Funds- Subject to subsection (b), of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide activities, up to $89,000,000 may be available for Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors for the activation and deployment of the AN/TPY-2 forward-based X-band radar to a classified location.
(b) Limitation-
(1) IN GENERAL- Funds may not be available under subsection (a) for the purpose specified in that subsection until the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the deployment of the AN/TPY-2 forward-based X-band radar as described in that subsection, including:
(A) The location of deployment of the radar.
(B) A description of the operational parameters of the deployment of the radar, including planning for force protection.
(C) A description of any recurring and non-recurring expenses associated with the deployment of the radar.
(D) A description of the cost-sharing arrangements between the United States and the country in which the radar will be deployed regarding the expenses described in subparagraph (C).
(E) A description of the other terms and conditions of the agreement between the United States and such country regarding the deployment of the radar.
(2) FORM- The report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

Subtitle D—Reports[edit]

SEC. 241. BIENNIAL REPORTS ON JOINT AND SERVICE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND EXPERIMENTATION.[edit]

(a) In General- Section 485 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 485. Joint and service concept development and experimentation
`(a) Biennial Reports Required- Not later than January 1 of each even numbered-year, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary's designee shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the conduct and outcomes of joint and service concept development and experimentation.
`(b) Matters To Be Included- Each report under subsection (a) shall include the following:
`(1) A description of any changes since the latest report submitted under this section to each of the following:
`(A) The organization of the Department of Defense responsible for executing the mission of joint concept development and experimentation, or its specific authorities related to that mission.
`(B) The process for tasking forces (including forces designated as joint experimentation forces) to participate in joint concept development and experimentation, and the specific authority of the organization responsible for executing the mission of joint concept development and experimentation over those forces.
`(C) The resources provided for initial implementation of joint concept development and experimentation, the process for providing such resources to the organization responsible for executing the mission of joint concept development and experimentation, the categories of funding for joint concept development and experimentation, and the authority of the organization responsible for executing the mission of joint concept development and experimentation for budget execution for such activities.
`(D) The assigned role of the organization responsible for executing the mission of joint concept development and experimentation for--
`(i) integrating and testing in joint concept development and experimentation the systems that emerge from warfighting experimentation by the armed forces and the Defense Agencies;
`(ii) assessing the effectiveness of organizational structures, operational concepts, and technologies relating to joint concept development and experimentation; and
`(iii) assisting the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in setting priorities for requirements or acquisition programs in light of joint concept development and experimentation.
`(2) A description of the conduct of joint concept development and experimentation activities, and of concept development and experimentation activities of each of the military departments, during the two-year period ending on the date of such report, including--
`(A) the funding involved;
`(B) the number of activities engaged in;
`(C) the forces involved;
`(D) the national and homeland security challenges addressed;
`(E) the operational concepts assessed;
`(F) the technologies assessed;
`(G) the scenarios and measures of effectiveness utilized; and
`(H) specific interactions under such activities with the commanders of the combatant commands and with other organizations and entities inside and outside the Department.
`(3) A description of the conduct of joint concept development and experimentation, and of the conduct of concept development and experimentation by each of the military departments, during the two-year period ending on the date of such report with respect to the development of warfighting concepts for operational scenarios more than 10 years in the future, including--
`(A) the funding involved;
`(B) the number of activities engaged in;
`(C) the forces involved;
`(D) the challenges addressed;
`(E) the operational concepts assessed;
`(F) the technologies assessed;
`(G) the scenarios and measures of effectiveness utilized; and
`(H) specific interactions with the commanders of the combatant commands and with other organizations and entities inside and outside the Department.
`(4) A description of the mechanisms used to coordinate joint, service, interagency, Coalition, and other appropriate concept development and experimentation activities.
`(5) An assessment of the return on investment in concept development and experimentation activities, including a description of the following:
`(A) Specific outcomes and impacts within the Department of the results of past joint and service concept development and experimentation in terms of new doctrine, operational concepts, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, or the allocation of resources, or in activities that terminated support for legacy concepts, programs, or systems.
`(B) Specific actions taken to implement the recommendations of the Commander of United States Joint Forces Command based on joint concept development and experimentation activities.
`(6) Such recommendations (based primarily on the results of joint and service concept development and experimentation) as the Secretary considers appropriate for enhancing the development of joint warfighting capabilities by modifying activities throughout the Department relating to--
`(A) the development or acquisition of specific advanced technologies, systems, or weapons or systems platforms;
`(B) key systems attributes and key performance parameters for the development or acquisition of advanced technologies and systems;
`(C) joint or service doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership development, personnel, or facilities;
`(D) the reduction or elimination of redundant equipment and forces, including the synchronization of the development and fielding of advanced technologies among the armed forces to enable the development and execution of joint operational concepts; and
`(E) the development or modification of initial capabilities documents, operational requirements, and relative priorities for acquisition programs to meet joint requirements.
`(7) With respect to improving the effectiveness of joint concept development and experimentation capabilities, such recommendations (based primarily on the results of joint warfighting experimentation) as the Secretary considers appropriate regarding--
`(A) the conduct of, adequacy of resources for, or development of technologies to support such capabilities; and
`(B) changes in support from other elements of the Department responsible for concept development and experimentation by joint or service organizations.
`(8) The coordination of the concept development and experimentation activities of the Commander of the United States Joint Forces Command with the activities of the Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Supreme Allied Command Transformation.
`(9) Any other matters that the Secretary consider appropriate.
`(c) Coordination and Support- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Secretaries of the military departments and the heads of other appropriate elements of the Department of Defense provide such information and support as is required for the preparation of the reports required by this section.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 23 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 485 and inserting the following new item:
`485. Joint and service concept development and experimentation.'.

SEC. 242. REPORT ON PARTICIPATION OF THE HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS IN RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.[edit]

(a) In General- The Secretary of Defense shall carry out an independent assessment of the participation of covered educational institutions in research and educational programs and activities of the Department of Defense.
(b) Report- Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the assessment required under subsection (a).
(c) Matters Included- The report required under subsection (b) shall include the following:
(1) A description of research, training, technical assistance, infrastructure support, and educational programs and activities conducted by the Department of Defense in support of covered educational institutions.
(2) A survey of the level of participation of covered educational institutions in programs described in paragraph (1), and lessons learned from the survey.
(3) An assessment of the relevance, including outcomes and effects, of the programs and activities identified in paragraph (1) to the research and educational programs, activities, and missions of the Department of Defense.
(4) An assessment of additional activities by the Department of Defense that support covered educational institutions whose primary focus is the training and educating of minority scientists, engineers, and technicians.
(5) An assessment of barriers to the participation of covered educational institutions in the research and educational programs and activities of the Department of Defense.
(6) Recommendations to increase the capacity of covered educational institutions to participate in research and educational programs and activities that are critical to the national security functions of the Department of Defense.
(7) Any other matters the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
(d) Cooperation of Defense Organizations- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the relevant elements of the Department of Defense provide all information necessary for the completion of the assessment required under subsection (a).
(e) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `covered educational institutions' means--
(A) a historically Black college or university that is a part B institution, as defined in section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2));
(B) a minority institution, as defined in section 365(3) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1067k(3));
(C) a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in section 502(a)(5) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5));
(D) a Tribal College or University, as defined in section 316(b)(3) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3)); and
(E) other minority postsecondary institutions.
(2) The term `research and educational programs and activities' includes programs and activities relating to research, development, test, and evaluation and education.

SEC. 243. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESPONSE TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE ON DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.[edit]

(a) Report Required- Not later than January 1, 2010, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons.
(b) Elements- The report required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of each of the findings and recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons.
(2) A detailed description of the response of the Department of Defense to each finding and recommendation of the Task Force, including--
(A) for each recommendation that is being implemented or that the Secretary plans to implement--
(i) a summary of actions that have been taken to implement such recommendation; and
(ii) a schedule, with specific milestones, for completing the implementation of such recommendation; and
(B) for each recommendation that the Secretary does not plan to implement--
(i) the reasons for the decision not to implement such recommendation; and
(ii) a summary of the alternative actions the Secretary plans to take to address the purposes underlying such recommendation.
(3) A summary of any additional actions the Secretary plans to take to address concerns raised by the Task Force.

Subtitle E—Other Matters[edit]

SEC. 251. MODIFICATION OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO SURVIVABILITY TESTING OVERSIGHT BY THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION.[edit]

(a) Authority To Designate Additional Systems as Major Systems and Programs Subject to Testing- Section 2366(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) The term `covered system' means--
`(A) a vehicle, weapon platform, or conventional weapon system that--
`(i) includes features designed to provide some degree of protection to users in combat; and
`(ii) is a major system as defined in section 2302(5) of this title; or
`(B) any other system or program designated by the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this section.'.
(b) Revision to Report Requirement- Section 2366(d) of such title is amended--
(1) by inserting `(1)' before `At the conclusion'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(2) If a decision is made within the Department of Defense to proceed to operational use of a system, or to make procurement funds available for a system, before Milestone C approval of that system, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, as soon as practicable after such decision, the following:
`(A) A report describing the status of survivability and live fire testing of that system.
`(B) The report required under paragraph (1).'.
(c) Force Protection Equipment- Section 139(b) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively.

SEC. 252. TECHNOLOGY-NEUTRAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS TO SUPPORT FULLY INTEROPERABLE ELECTRONIC PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.[edit]

Section 1635 of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 460; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note) is amended--

(1) in subsection (h)(1), by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
`(C) A description and analysis of the level of interoperability and security of technologies for sharing healthcare information among the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and their transaction partners.
`(D) A description and analysis of the problems the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs are having with, and the progress such departments are making toward, ensuring interoperable and secure healthcare information systems and electronic healthcare records.'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(j) Technology-Neutral Guidelines and Standards- The Director, in consultation with industry and appropriate Federal agencies, shall develop, or shall adopt from industry, technology-neutral information technology infrastructure guidelines and standards for use by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to enable those departments to effectively select and utilize information technologies to meet the requirements of this section.'.

SEC. 253. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION PROGRAMS AND REPEAL OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.[edit]

(a) Assessment and Report Required-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall assess the feasibility of consolidating the various technology transition programs in the Department of Defense into a unified effort managed by a senior official of the Department.
(2) PROGRAMS INCLUDED- The assessment required by paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the technology transition programs managed or overseen by the Secretary of Defense; and
(B) as the Under Secretary considers appropriate, the technology transition programs of the military departments.
(3) REPORT- Not later than October 1, 2009, the Under Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the assessment required by paragraph (1). The report shall include the following:
(A) A description of each of the technology transition programs considered as part of the assessment.
(B) An evaluation of the extent to which each technology transition program fulfills its intended mission and supports effective and efficient technology transition.
(C) For each technology transition program considered in the assessment, a summary of the funding available for the five fiscal years preceding the date on which the report is submitted.
(D) The conclusion of the Under Secretary as to whether there are any benefits in consolidating the technology transition programs into a unified effort managed by a senior official of the Department of Defense.
(E) Recommendations to add, repeal, or amend statutes or regulations in order to more effectively enable technology transition.
(F) Recommendations regarding the appropriate management structure, fiscal controls, and stakeholder engagement required to ensure that a unified technology transition program will cost-effectively and efficiently enable technology transition.
(b) Reporting Requirement Repealed- Section 2359a of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (h); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).

SEC. 254. TRUSTED DEFENSE SYSTEMS.[edit]

(a) Vulnerability Assessment Required- The Secretary of Defense shall conduct an assessment of selected covered acquisition programs to identify vulnerabilities in the supply chain of each program's electronics and information processing systems that potentially compromise the level of trust in the systems. Such assessment shall--
(1) identify vulnerabilities at multiple levels of the electronics and information processing systems of the selected programs, including microcircuits, software, and firmware;
(2) prioritize the potential vulnerabilities and effects of the various elements and stages of the system supply chain to identify the most effective balance of investments to minimize the effects of compromise;
(3) provide recommendations regarding ways of managing supply chain risk for covered acquisition programs; and
(4) identify the appropriate lead person, and supporting elements, within the Department of Defense for the development of an integrated strategy for managing risk in the supply chain for covered acquisition programs.
(b) Assessment of Methods for Verifying the Trust of Semiconductors Procured From Commercial Sources- The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with appropriate elements of the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, private industry, and academia, shall conduct an assessment of various methods of verifying the trust of semiconductors procured by the Department of Defense from commercial sources for use in mission-critical components of potentially vulnerable defense systems. The assessment shall include the following:
(1) An identification of various methods of verifying the trust of semiconductors, including methods under development at the Defense Agencies, government laboratories, institutions of higher education, and in the private sector.
(2) A determination of the methods identified under paragraph (1) that are most suitable for the Department of Defense.
(3) An assessment of the additional research and technology development needed to develop methods of verifying the trust of semiconductors that meet the needs of the Department of Defense.
(4) Any other matters that the Under Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Strategy Required-
(1) IN GENERAL- The lead person identified under subsection (a)(4), in cooperation with the supporting elements also identified under such subsection, shall develop an integrated strategy--
(A) for managing risk--
(i) in the supply chain of electronics and information processing systems for covered acquisition programs; and
(ii) in the procurement of semiconductors; and
(B) that ensures dependable, continuous, long-term access and trust for all mission-critical semiconductors procured from both foreign and domestic sources.
(2) REQUIREMENTS- At a minimum, the strategy shall--
(A) address the vulnerabilities identified by the assessment under subsection (a);
(B) reflect the priorities identified by such assessment;
(C) provide guidance for the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process in order to ensure that covered acquisition programs have the necessary resources to implement all appropriate elements of the strategy;
(D) promote the use of verification tools, as appropriate, for ensuring trust of commercially acquired systems;
(E) increase use of trusted foundry services, as appropriate; and
(F) ensure sufficient oversight in implementation of the plan.
(d) Policies and Actions for Assuring Trust in Integrated Circuits- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) develop policy requiring that trust assurance be a high priority for covered acquisition programs in all phases of the electronic component supply chain and integrated circuit development and production process, including design and design tools, fabrication of the semiconductors, packaging, final assembly, and test;
(2) develop policy requiring that programs whose electronics and information systems are determined to be vital to operational readiness or mission effectiveness are to employ trusted foundry services to fabricate their custom designed integrated circuits, unless the Secretary specifically authorizes otherwise;
(3) incorporate the strategies and policies of the Department of Defense regarding development and use of trusted integrated circuits into all relevant Department directives and instructions related to the acquisition of integrated circuits and programs that use such circuits; and
(4) take actions to promote the use and development of tools that verify the trust in all phases of the integrated circuit development and production process of mission-critical parts acquired from non-trusted sources.
(e) Submission to Congress- Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees--
(1) the assessments required by subsections (a) and (b);
(2) the strategy required by subsection (c); and
(3) a description of the policies developed and actions taken under subsection (d).
(f) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `covered acquisition programs' means an acquisition program of the Department of Defense that is a major system for purposes of section 2302(5) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) The terms `trust' and `trusted' refer, with respect to electronic and information processing systems, to the ability of the Department of Defense to have confidence that the systems function as intended and are free of exploitable vulnerabilities, either intentionally or unintentionally designed or inserted as part of the system at any time during its life cycle.
(3) The term `trusted foundry services' means the program of the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense, or any similar program approved by the Secretary of Defense, for the development and manufacture of integrated circuits for critical defense systems in secure industrial environments.

SEC. 255. CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT TO OUTLINE A JOINT APPROACH FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF VERTICAL LIFT AIRCRAFT AND ROTORCRAFT.[edit]

(a) Assessment Required- The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall carry out a capabilities-based assessment that outlines a joint approach to the future development of vertical lift aircraft and rotorcraft for all of the Armed Forces. The assessment shall--
(1) address critical technologies required for future development, including a technology roadmap;
(2) include the development of a detailed science and technology investment and implementation plan and an identification of the resources required to implement such plan; and
(3) include the development of a strategic plan that--
(A) formalizes the strategic vision of the Department of Defense for the next generation of vertical lift aircraft and rotorcraft;
(B) establishes joint requirements for the next generation of vertical lift aircraft and rotorcraft technology; and
(C) emphasizes the development of common service requirements.
(b) Report- The Secretary and the Chairman shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the assessment under subsection (a). The report shall include--
(1) the technology roadmap referred to in subsection (a)(1);
(2) the plan and the identification of resources referred to in subsection (a)(2);
(3) the strategic plan referred to in subsection (a)(3); and
(4) a detailed plan to establish a Joint Vertical Lift Aircraft/Rotorcraft Office based on lessons learned from the Joint Advanced Strike Technology Office.

SEC. 256. EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD TECHNOLOGY.[edit]

(a) Executive Agent- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall designate a senior official of the Department of Defense to act as the executive agent for printed circuit board technology.
(b) Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities-
(1) ESTABLISHMENT- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and in accordance with Directive 5101.1, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the executive agent designated under subsection (a).
(2) SPECIFICATION- The roles and responsibilities of the executive agent designated under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
(A) Development and maintenance of a printed circuit board and interconnect technology roadmap that ensures that the Department of Defense has access to the manufacturing capabilities and technical expertise necessary to meet future military requirements regarding such technology.
(B) Development of recommended funding strategies necessary to meet the requirements of the roadmap developed under subparagraph (A).
(C) Assessment of the vulnerabilities, trustworthiness, and diversity of the printed circuit board supply chain, including the development of trustworthiness requirements for printed circuit boards used in defense systems, and to develop strategies to address matters that are identified as a result of such assessment.
(D) Such other roles and responsibilities as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
(c) Support Within Department of Defense- In accordance with Directive 5101.1, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the military departments, Defense Agencies, and other components of the Department of Defense provide the executive agent designated under subsection (a) with the appropriate support and resources needed to perform the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the executive agent.
(d) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `Directive 5101.1' means Department of Defense Directive 5101.1, or any successor directive relating to the responsibilities of an executive agent of the Department of Defense.
(2) The term `executive agent' has the meaning given the term `DoD Executive Agent' in Directive 5101.1.

SEC. 257. REVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS AND CONCEPTS.[edit]

(a) Availability of Funds for Prompt Global Strike Capability Development- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funds for conventional prompt global strike capability development are authorized by this Act only for those activities expressly delineated in the expenditure plan for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 that was required by section 243 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 51; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) and submitted to the congressional defense committees and dated March 24, 2008, those activities for which funds are authorized to be appropriated in this Act, or those activities otherwise expressly authorized by Congress.
(b) Report on Technology Applications- Not later than April 1, 2009, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains--
(1) a description of the technology applications developed pursuant to conventional prompt global strike activities during fiscal year 2009; and
(2) for each such technology application, the conventional prompt global strike concept towards which the application could be applied.
(c) Review of Conventional Prompt Global Strike Concepts- The Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, conduct a review of each nonnuclear prompt global strike concept with respect to which the President requests funding in the budget of the President for fiscal year 2010 (as submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code).
(d) Elements of Review- The review required by subsection (c) shall include, for each concept described in that subsection, the following:
(1) The full cost of demonstrating such concept.
(2) An assessment of any policy, legal, or treaty-related issues that could arise during the course of, or as a result of, deployment of each concept and recommendations to address such issues.
(3) The extent to which the concept could be misconstrued as a nuclear weapon or delivery system and recommendations to mitigate the risk of such a misconstrual.
(4) An assessment of the potential basing and deployment options for the concept.
(5) A description of the types of targets against which the concept might be used.
(6) An assessment of the adequacy of the intelligence that would be needed to support an attack involving the concept.
(e) Report on Conventional Prompt Global Strike Concepts- Not later than September 1, 2009, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the results of the review required by subsection (c).