Public Law 111-383


 * Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

{{SECTION|SECTION 1|SEC. 1}}. SHORT TITLE.

 * (a) .—
 * This Act may be cited as the ``Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011´´.


 * (b) .—
 * Any reference in this or any other act to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011´´ shall be deemed to refer to the ``Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011´´.

{{SECTION|SECTION 2|SEC. 2}}. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

 * (a) .—
 * This Act is organized into three divisions as follows:
 * (1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations
 * (2) Division B--Military Construction Authorizations
 * (3) Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations


 * (b) .—
 * The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
 * Sec. 1 Short Title
 * Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
 * Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees.

{{SECTION|SECTION 3|SEC. 3}}. CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.
For purposes of this Act, the term `congressional defense committees´ has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.


 * SEC. 101. ARMY.
 * Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 for procurement for the Army as follows:
 * (1) For aircraft, $5,908,384,000.
 * (2) For missiles, $1,670,463,000.
 * (3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles, $1,656,263,000.
 * (4) For ammunition, $1,953,194,000.
 * (5) For other procurement, $9,758,965,000.


 * SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.
 * (a) NAVY— Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 for procurement for the Navy as follows:
 * (1) For aircraft, $18,877,139,000.
 * (2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, $3,358,264,000.
 * (3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $15,724,520,000.
 * (4) For other procurement, $6,381,815,000.
 * (b) MARINE CORPS— Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 for procurement for the Marine Corps in the amount of $1,296,838,000.
 * (c) NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION— Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 for procurement of ammunition for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the amount of $817,991,000.


 * SEC. 103. AIR FORCE.
 * Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:
 * (1) For aircraft, $14,668,408,000.
 * (2) For ammunition, $672,420,000.
 * (3) For missiles, $5,444,464,000.
 * (4) For other procurement, $17,845,342,000.


 * SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES.
 * Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2011 for Defense-wide procurement in the amount of $4,398,168,000.


 * SEC. 111. MULTIYEAR FUNDING FOR DETAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LHA REPLACEMENT SHIP DESIGNATED LHA-7.
 * (a) — The Secretary of the Navy may enter into a contract for detail design and construction of the LHA Replacement ship designated LHA-7 that provides that, subject to subsection (b), funds for payments under the contract may be provided from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
 * (b) — A contract entered into under subsection (a) shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2011 is subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose for such later fiscal year.


 * SEC. 112. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN NAVY AIRBORNE SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE CAPABILITIES.


 * (a) — Congress finds the following:
 * (1) The Navy terminated the EP-X program to acquire a new land-based airborne signals intelligence capability because of escalating costs and funds budgeted for the program were re-allocated to other priorities.
 * (2) The Navy took this action without planning and budgeting for alternative means to meet operational requirements for tactical-level and theater-level signals intelligence capabilities to support the combatant commands and national intelligence consumers.
 * (3) The principal Navy airborne signals intelligence capability today is the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (ARIES II)--the aircraft and associated electronic equipment of this system are aging and will require replacement or substantial ongoing upgrades to continue to meet requirements.
 * (4) The Special Projects Aircraft (SPA) platform of the Navy is the second critical element in the airborne signals intelligence capability of the Navy and provides the Navy its most advanced, comprehensive multi-intelligence and quick-reaction capability available.


 * (b) —
 * (1) PROHIBITION ON RETIREMENT OF PLATFORMS- The Secretary of the Navy may not retire (or to prepare to retire) the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II or Special Projects Aircraft platform.
 * (2) MAINTENANCE OF PLATFORMS- The Secretary of the Navy shall continue to maintain, sustain, and upgrade the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II and Special Projects Aircraft platforms in order to provide capabilities necessary to operate effectively against rapidly evolving threats and to meet combatant commander operational intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements.
 * (3) CERTIFICATION- Not later than February 1, 2011, and annually thereafter, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly certify to Congress the following:
 * (A) The Secretary of the Navy is maintaining and sustaining the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II and Special Projects Aircraft platform in a manner that meets the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands.
 * (B) Any plan for the retirement or replacement of the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II or Special Projects Aircraft platform will provide, in the aggregate, an equivalent or superior capability and capacity to the platform concerned.
 * (4) TERMINATION- The requirements of this subsection with respect to the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II or the Special Projects Aircraft platform shall expire on the commencement of the fielding by the Navy of a platform or mix of platforms and sensors that are, in the aggregate, equivalent or superior to the EP-3E Airborne Reconnaissance Integrated Electronic System II (spiral 3) or the Special Projects Aircraft (P909) platform.


 * (c) —
 * (1) RESTRICTION- The Secretary of the Navy may not transfer the Saber Focus unmanned aerial system, associated equipment, or processing, exploitation, and dissemination capabilities of the Saber Focus program to the Secretary of the Air Force until 30 days after the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that after such a transfer, the Secretary of the Air Force will provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (hereinafter in this section referred to as `ISR') capabilities at the same or greater capability and capacity level as the capability or capacity level at which the Saber Focus program provides such capabilities to the area of operations concerned as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
 * (2) CONTINUED NAVY PROVISION OF CAPABILITIES- The Secretary of the Navy shall continue to provide Saber Focus ISR program capabilities at the same or greater capability and capacity level as the capability or capacity level at which the Saber Focus program provides such capabilities as of the date of the enactment of this Act to the area of operations concerned until--
 * (A) the certification referred to in paragraph (1) is provided to the congressional defense committees; or
 * (B) 30 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that the ISR capabilities of the Saber Focus program are no longer required to mitigate the ISR requirements of the combatant commander in the area of operations concerned.


 * SEC. 113. REPORT ON NAVAL FORCE STRUCTURE AND MISSILE DEFENSE.
 * (a) — Not later than March 31, 2011, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the force structure requirements of the major combatant surface vessels with respect to ballistic missile defense.
 * (b) — The report shall include the following:
 * (1) An analysis of whether the requirement for sea-based missile defense can be accommodated by upgrading Aegis ships that exist as of the date of the report or by procuring additional combatant surface vessels.
 * (2) A discussion of whether such sea-based missile defense will require increasing the overall number of combatant surface vessels beyond the requirement of 88 cruisers and destroyers in the 313-ship fleet plan of the Navy.
 * (3) A discussion of the process for determining the number of Aegis ships needed by each commander of the combatant commands to fulfill ballistic missile defense requirements, including (in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) the number of such ships needed to support the phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense in Europe.
 * (4) A discussion of the impact of Aegis Ashore missile defense deployments, as well as deployment of other elements of the ballistic missile defense system, on Aegis ballistic missile defense ship force structure requirements.
 * (5) A discussion of the potential effect of ballistic missile defense operations on the ability of the Navy to meet surface fleet demands in each geographic area and for each mission set.
 * (6) An evaluation of how the Aegis ballistic missile defense program can succeed as part of a balanced fleet of adequate size and strength to meet the security needs of the United States.
 * (7) A description of both the shortfalls and the benefits of expected technological advancements in the sea-based missile defense program.
 * (8) A description of the anticipated plan for deployment of Aegis ballistic missile defense ships within the context of the fleet response plan.


 * SEC. 114. REPORTS ON SERVICE-LIFE EXTENSION OF F/A-18 AIRCRAFT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
 * (a) — Before the Secretary of the Navy may enter into a program to extend the service life of F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, the Secretary shall--
 * (1) conduct a cost-benefit analysis, in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, comparing extending the service life of existing F/A-18 aircraft with procuring additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft as a means of managing the shortfall of the Department of the Navy in strike fighter aircraft; and
 * (2) submit to the congressional defense committees a report on such cost-benefit analysis.
 * (b) — The cost-benefit analysis required by subsection (a)(1) shall include the following:
 * (1) An estimate of the full costs, over the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted to Congress under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, with the budget of the President, of extending legacy F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, including--
 * (A) any increases in operation and maintenance costs associated with operating such aircraft beyond a service life of 8,600 hours; and
 * (B) the costs with respect to the airframe, avionics, software, and aircraft subsystems and components required to remain relevant in countering future threats and meeting the warfighting requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands.
 * (2) An estimate of the full costs, over the period covered by such future-years defense program, of procuring such additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft as would be required to meet the strike fighter requirements of the Department of the Navy in the event the service life of legacy F/A-18 aircraft is not extended beyond 8,600 hours.
 * (3) An assessment of risks associated with extending the service life of legacy F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, including the level of certainty that the Secretary will be able to achieve such an extension.
 * (4) An estimate of the cost-per-flight hour incurred in operating legacy F/A-18 aircraft with a service life extended beyond 8,600 hours.
 * (5) An estimate of the cost-per-flight hour incurred for operating new F/A-18E or FA-18F aircraft.
 * (6) An assessment of any alternatives to extending the service life of legacy F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours or buying additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft that may be available to the Secretary to manage the shortfall of the Department of the Navy in strike fighter aircraft.
 * (c) — In addition to the information required in the cost-benefit analysis under subsection (b), the report under subsection (a)(2) shall include an assessment of the following:
 * (1) Differences in capabilities of--
 * (A) legacy F/A-18 aircraft that have undergone service-life extension;
 * (B) F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft; and
 * (C) F-35C aircraft.
 * (2) Differences in capabilities that would result under the legacy F/A-18 aircraft service-life extension program if such program would--
 * (A) provide only airframe-life extensions to the legacy F/A-18 aircraft fleet; and
 * (B) provide for airframe-life extensions and capability upgrades to the legacy F/A-18 aircraft fleet.
 * (3) Any disruption that procuring additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft, rather than extending the service life of legacy F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8,600 hours, would have on the plan of the Navy to procure operational carrier-variant Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
 * (4) Any changes that procuring additional F/A-18E or FA-18F aircraft, rather than extending the service life of legacy F/A-18 aircraft beyond 8600 hours, would have on the force structure or force mix intended by the Navy for its carrier air wings.
 * (5) Any other operational implication of extending (or not extending) the service life of legacy F/A-18 aircraft that the Secretary considers appropriate.
 * (d) — Before reducing the number of F/A-18 aircraft in an operational squadron of the Navy or Marine Corps, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that discusses the operational risks and impacts of reducing the squadron size. The report shall include an assessment of the following:
 * (1) The effect of the reduction on the operational capability and readiness of the Navy and the Marine Corps to conduct overseas contingency operations.
 * (2) The effect of the reduction on the capability of the Navy and the Marine Corps to meet ongoing operational demands.
 * (3) Any mechanisms the Secretary intends to use to mitigate any risks associated with the squadron size reduction.
 * (4) The effect of the reduction on pilots and ground support crews of F/A-18 aircraft, in terms of training, readiness, and war fighting capabilities.
 * (e) — Before reducing the size of an F/A-18 aircraft training squadron, or transferring an F/A-18 training aircraft for operational needs, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that describes--
 * (1) any risks to sustaining required training of F/A-18 aircraft pilots with a reduced training aircraft base; and
 * (2) any actions the Navy is taking to mitigate the risks described under paragraph (1).


 * SEC. 121. LIMITATIONS ON BIOMETRIC SYSTEMS FUNDS.
 * Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2011 for biometrics programs and operations, not more than 85 percent may be obligated or expended until--
 * (1) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report on the actions taken and planned to be taken--
 * (A) to implement subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (16) of the National Security Presidential Directive dated June 5, 2008 (NSPD-59);
 * (B) to implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United States included in the report of the Comptroller General numbered GAO-08-1065 dated September 2008;
 * (C) to implement the recommendations of the Comptroller General included in the report of the Comptroller General numbered GAO-09-49 dated October 2008;
 * (D) to fully and completely characterize the current biometrics architecture and establish the objective architecture for the Department of Defense;
 * (E) to ensure that an official of the Office of the Secretary of Defense has the authority necessary to be responsible for ensuring that all funding for biometrics programs and operations is programmed, budgeted, and executed; and
 * (F) to ensure that an officer within the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has the authority necessary to be responsible for ensuring the development and implementation of common and interoperable standards for the collection, storage, and use of biometrics data by all commanders of the combatant commands and their commands; and
 * (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which the report is submitted under paragraph (1).


 * SEC. 122. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN AND MATRIX FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.
 * (a) —
 * (1) PLAN REQUIRED- The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall establish a management plan for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program under which decisions to commit to specified levels of production are linked to progress in meeting specified program milestones, including design, manufacturing, testing, and fielding milestones for critical system maturity elements.
 * (2) NATURE OF PLAN- The plan under paragraph (1) shall align technical progress milestones with acquisition milestones in a system maturity matrix. The matrix shall provide criteria and conditions for comparing expected levels of demonstrated system maturity with annual production commitments, starting with the fiscal year 2012 production program, and continuing over the remaining life of the system development and demonstration program. The matrix and criteria shall include elements such as the following:
 * (A) Manufacturing maturity, including on-time deliveries, manufacturing process control, quality rates, and labor efficiency rates.
 * (B) Engineering maturity, including metrics for the number of new design actions and number of design changes in a given period.
 * (C) Performance and testing progress, including test points, hours and flights accomplished, capabilities demonstrated, key performance parameters, and attributes demonstrated.
 * (D) Mission effectiveness and system reliability, including operational effectiveness and reliability growth.
 * (E) Training, fielding, and deployment status.
 * (b) —
 * (1) INITIAL REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the plan required by subsection (a). The report shall include--
 * (A) the proposed system maturity matrix described in subsection (a)(2), including a description, for each element specified in the matrix under subsection (a)(2), of the criteria and milestones to be used in evaluating actual program performance against planned performance for each annual production commitment; and
 * (B) a description of the actions to be taken to implement the plan.
 * (2) UPDATES- The Secretary shall submit to Congress, at or about the same time as the submittal to Congress of the budget of the President for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2012 (as submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), any modification to the plan required by subsection (a) that was made during the preceding calendar year, including a rationale for each such modification.
 * (c) —
 * (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the expected capabilities of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft at the time when the Marine Corps plans to declare Initial Operating Capability for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
 * (2) ELEMENTS- The report under paragraph (1) shall including a description of the following with respect to the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter aircraft:
 * (A) Performance of the aircraft and its subsystems, compared to key performance parameters.
 * (B) Expected capability to perform Marine Corps missions.
 * (C) Required maintenance and logistics standards, including mission capability rates.
 * (D) Expected levels of crew training and performance.
 * (E) Product improvements that are planned before the Initial Operating Capability of the aircraft to be made after the Initial Operating Capability of the aircraft, as planned in March 2010.


 * SEC. 123. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON USE OF COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS FUNDS.
 * (a) —
 * (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, the commander of the United States Special Operations Command shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the use of Combat Mission Requirements funds during the preceding fiscal quarter.
 * (2) COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS FUNDS- For purposes of this section, Combat Mission Requirements funds are amounts available to the Department of Defense for Defense-wide procurement in the Combat Mission Requirements subaccount of the Defense-wide Procurement account.
 * (b) — Each report under subsection (a) shall include, for the fiscal quarter covered by such report, the following:
 * (1) The balance of the Combat Mission Requirements subaccount at the beginning of such quarter.
 * (2) The balance of the Combat Mission Requirements subaccount at the end of such quarter.
 * (3) Any transfer of funds into or out of the Combat Mission Requirements subaccount during such quarter, including the source of any funds transferred into the subaccount, and the objective of any transfer of funds out of the subaccount.
 * (4) A description of any requirement--
 * (A) approved for procurement using Combat Mission Requirements funds during such quarter; or
 * (B) procured using such funds during such quarter.
 * (5) With respect to each description of a requirement under paragraph (4), the amount of Combat Mission Requirements funds committed to the procurement or approved procurement of such requirement.
 * (c) — Each report under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.


 * SEC. 124. COUNTER-IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE INITIATIVES DATABASE.
 * (a) —
 * (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, shall develop and maintain a comprehensive database containing appropriate information for coordinating, tracking, and archiving each counter-improvised explosive device initiative within the Department of Defense. The database shall, at a minimum, ensure the visibility of each counter-improvised explosive device initiative.
 * (2) USE OF INFORMATION- Using information contained in the database developed under paragraph (1), the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, shall--
 * (A) identify and eliminate redundant counter-improvised explosive device initiatives;
 * (B) facilitate the transition of counter-improvised explosive device initiatives from funding under the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to funding provided by the military departments; and
 * (C) notify the appropriate personnel and organizations prior to a counter-improvised explosive device initiative being funded through the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.
 * (3) COORDINATION- In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that the Secretary of each military department coordinates and collaborates on development of the database to ensure its interoperability, completeness, consistency, and effectiveness.
 * (b) — The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, shall--
 * (1) develop appropriate means to measure the effectiveness of counter-improvised explosive device initiatives; and
 * (2) prioritize the funding of such initiatives according to such means.
 * (c) — In this section, the term `counter-improvised explosive device initiative' means any project, program, or research activity funded by any component of the Department of Defense that is intended to assist or support efforts to counter, combat, or defeat the use of improvised explosive devices.
 * SEC. 125. STUDY ON LIGHTWEIGHT BODY ARMOR SOLUTIONS.
 * (a) — The Secretary of Defense shall enter into a contract with a federally funded research and development center to conduct a study to--
 * (1) assess the effectiveness of the processes used by the Secretary to identify and examine the requirements for lighter weight body armor systems; and
 * (2) determine ways in which the Secretary may more effectively address the research, development, and procurement requirements regarding reducing the weight of body armor.
 * (b) — The study conducted under subsection (a) shall include findings and recommendations regarding the following
 * (1) The requirement for lighter weight body armor and personal protective equipment and the ability of the Secretary to meet such requirement.
 * (2) Innovative design ideas for more modular body armor that allow for scalable protection levels for various missions and threats.
 * (3) The need for research, development, and acquisition funding dedicated specifically for reducing the weight of body armor.
 * (4) The efficiency and effectiveness of current body armor funding procedures and processes.
 * (5) Industry concerns, capabilities, and willingness to invest in the development and production of lightweight body armor initiatives.
 * (6) Barriers preventing the development of lighter weight body armor (including such barriers with respect to technical, institutional, or financial problems).
 * (7) Changes to procedures or policy with respect to lightweight body armor.
 * (8) Other areas of concern not previously addressed by equipping boards, body armor producers, or program managers.
 * (c) — Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the study conducted under subsection (a).


 * SEC. 126. INTEGRATION OF SOLID STATE LASER SYSTEMS INTO CERTAIN AIRCRAFT.
 * (a) — The Secretary of Defense shall conduct an analysis of the feasibility of integrating solid state laser systems into the aircraft platforms specified in subsection (b) for purposes of permitting such aircraft to accomplish their missions, including to provide close air support.
 * (b) — The aircraft platforms specified in this subsection shall include, at a minimum, the following:
 * (1) The C-130 aircraft.
 * (2) The B-1 bomber aircraft.
 * (3) The F-35 fighter aircraft.
 * (c) — The analysis required by subsection (a) shall include a determination of the following:
 * (1) The estimated cost per unit of each laser system analyzed.
 * (2) The estimated cost of operation and maintenance of each aircraft platform specified in subsection (b) in connection with each laser system analyzed, noting that the fidelity of such analysis may not be uniform for all aircraft platforms.


 * SEC. 127. CONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL IMAGING SATELLITE CAPACITIES.
 * (a) — Except as provided in subsection (b), any contract for additional commercial imaging satellite capability or capacity entered into by the Department of Defense after December 31, 2010, shall require that the imaging telescope providing such capability or capacity under such contract has an aperture of not less than 1.5 meters.
 * (b) — The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation in subsection (a) if--
 * (1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees written certification that the waiver is in the national security interests of the United States; and
 * (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date on which the certification under paragraph (1) is submitted.
 * (c) — The limitation in subsection (a) may not be construed to prohibit or prevent the Secretary of Defense from continuing or maintaining current commercial imaging satellite capability or capacity in orbit or under contract by December 31, 2010.