[House Report 112-479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-479
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4310
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 11, 2012.--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 2013
112th Congress
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
112-479
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4310
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 11, 2012.--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 NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana BILL OWENS, New York
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TOM ROONEY, Florida MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania TIM RYAN, Ohio
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHRIS GIBSON, New York HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JOE HECK, Nevada COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey JACKIE SPEIER, California
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......................................................... 7
Committee Position............................................... 7
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 7
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 8
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 8
Budget Authority Implication..................................... 19
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 23
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 23
OVERVIEW....................................................... 23
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 23
Overview................................................... 23
Items of Special Interest.................................. 23
UH-72A Lakota Helicopter................................. 23
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 24
Overview................................................... 24
Items of Special Interest.................................. 24
Patriot Mods............................................. 24
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 24
Overview................................................... 24
Items of Special Interest.................................. 24
Heavy Brigade Combat Team force structure and industrial
base................................................... 24
Abrams tank upgrades................................... 26
Bradley fighting vehicle program....................... 26
Improved recovery vehicle.............................. 27
Paladin integrated management program.................. 27
Small arms modernization and sustainment................. 28
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 29
Overview................................................... 29
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 29
Overview................................................... 29
Items of Special Interest.................................. 29
Army and Marine Corps multi-mission radar development.... 29
Civil Support Team information management system......... 30
Joint Tactical Radio System Handheld, Manpack, and Small
Form Fit radio program................................. 30
Network Integration Exercises............................ 31
Spider Alpha Remote Control Units........................ 31
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................ 31
Overview................................................... 31
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 32
Overview................................................... 32
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
EA-18G advance procurement............................... 32
Reporting of the April 8, 2000, MV-22 mishap at Marana,
Arizona................................................ 32
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 33
Overview................................................... 33
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 33
Overview................................................... 33
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 33
Overview................................................... 33
Items of Special Interest.................................. 33
Littoral Combat Ship..................................... 33
Mine warfare............................................. 34
Navy Shipbuilding Program................................ 34
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 36
Overview................................................... 36
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 36
Overview................................................... 36
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 36
Overview................................................... 36
Items of Special Interest.................................. 36
F-35 aircraft program.................................... 36
Global Hawk Block 30 Aircraft............................ 37
Inter-theater airlift aircraft........................... 39
Intra-theater airlift aircraft........................... 40
Long Range Stand-Off..................................... 42
Long-range strike bomber programs........................ 43
Reaper unmanned aircraft system.......................... 44
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 44
Overview................................................... 44
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 44
Overview................................................... 44
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 44
Overview................................................... 44
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 45
Overview................................................... 45
Items of Special Interest.................................. 45
Aircraft Survivability Equipment......................... 45
Aviation Foreign Internal Defense and Non-Standard
Aviation program....................................... 45
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund...................... 46
Metrics for Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Capabilities for Manned and Unmanned
Medium Altitude Systems................................ 48
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense...................... 48
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 48
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 48
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 48
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 49
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army CH-47
Helicopters.............................................. 49
Section 112--Reports on Airlift Requirements of the Army... 49
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 49
Section 121--Retirement of Nuclear-Powered Ballistic
Submarines............................................... 49
Section 122--Extension of Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier
Construction Authority................................... 49
Section 123--Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority
for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G Aircraft................ 49
Section 124--Multiyear Procurement Authority for V-22 Joint
Aircraft Program......................................... 50
Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh
Burke-Class Destroyers and Associated Systems............ 50
Section 126--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia-
Class Submarine Program.................................. 50
Section 127--Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S.
Abraham Lincoln.......................................... 50
Section 128--Report on Littoral Combat Ship Designs........ 50
Section 129--Comptroller General Reviews of Littoral Combat
Ship Program............................................. 50
Section 130--Sense of Congress on Importance of Engineering
in Early Stages of Shipbuilding.......................... 51
Section 131--Sense of Congress on Marine Corps Amphibious
Lift and Presence Requirements........................... 51
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 51
Section 141--Retirement of B-1 Bomber Aircraft............. 51
Section 142--Maintenance of Strategic Airlift Aircraft..... 51
Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Divestment or Retirement of C-27J Aircraft............... 51
Section 144--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Termination of C-130 Avionics Modernization Program...... 52
Section 145--Review of C-130 Force Structure............... 52
Section 146--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program................ 52
Section 147--Procurement of Space-Based Infrared Systems... 53
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 54
Section 151--Requirement to Set F-35 Aircraft Initial
Operational Capability Dates............................. 54
Section 152--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of RQ-4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 54
Section 153--Common Data Link for Manned and Unmanned
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems... 54
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 55
OVERVIEW....................................................... 55
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 55
Overview................................................... 55
Items of Special Interest.................................. 55
Acute lung injury medical research....................... 55
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle............................ 55
Autonomous Sustainment Cargo Container................... 56
Body armor enhancements and personnel protection
equipment for female soldiers.......................... 56
Cellular networking to the tactical edge................. 58
Efforts to improve the sustainment of body armor......... 58
Ground robotic vehicle development....................... 59
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile program...................... 59
M4 carbine product improvement program................... 60
Occupant-centric survivability technology development
program................................................ 60
Patriot Product Improvement Program...................... 61
Pilot aid for helicopter landing and cargo handling...... 61
Research, Development, and Engineering Command........... 62
Robotics for surgical procedures......................... 62
Rotary-wing performance surface.......................... 62
Shadow unmanned aerial system alternative engine......... 63
Smartphone application development for the battlefield... 63
Turbo fuel cell advanced technology development.......... 63
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 64
Overview................................................... 64
Items of Special Interest.................................. 64
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program...... 64
Development of Unmanned Systems Weapon, Sensor, and
Payload Integration and Interoperability Capabilities.. 64
Electromagnetic Railgun.................................. 65
Marine Corps early transition activities................. 65
Naval use of non-lethal systems.......................... 66
Navy directed energy programs............................ 66
Shipbuilding material comparison......................... 66
Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering.............. 67
Universal tactical controller for unmanned systems....... 67
Unmanned aircraft programs for Navy aircraft carriers.... 67
Unmanned cargo-carrying-capable unmanned aerial system... 68
Utilization of Navy airship for airborne test and
evaluation............................................. 68
Unmanned Undersea Vehicles............................... 69
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 69
Overview................................................... 69
Items of Special Interest.................................. 70
Aerial networking........................................ 70
Aerospace sensing and measurement standards.............. 70
Enhanced weather data support............................ 70
Global Positioning System................................ 70
Hypervelocity ground testing with full scale vehicles.... 71
Industrial base for space surveillance optics............ 72
Infrared search and track system development............. 72
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System............. 72
Materials Affordability Initiative....................... 73
Operationally Responsive Space........................... 73
Realignment of airbase technologies division............. 74
Space-Based Nuclear Detection............................ 75
Space Situational Awareness Fence Program................ 75
Space Test Program....................................... 75
Specialized Undergraduate Flight Training Advanced
Trainer Replacement.................................... 76
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 76
Overview................................................... 76
Items of Special Interest.................................. 76
Active denial technology and roadmap..................... 76
Aegis Ashore Program..................................... 77
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Combat System............ 77
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense.......................... 78
Airborne Infrared and Advanced Remote Sensor Technology.. 78
AN/TPY-2 radar........................................... 79
Assessment on inner-aural communications hearing
protection capabilities................................ 79
Basic research........................................... 80
Blast gauges............................................. 80
Chemical Demilitarization and Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives program................................... 80
Combating terrorism and emergency response technology
innovation............................................. 81
Comparative effectiveness research for orthotics and
prosthetics............................................ 81
Concerns related to high concurrency and technical risk
associated with the EPAA............................... 82
Conventional Prompt Global Strike........................ 83
Counterterrorism and irregular warfare capabilities...... 84
Critical gaps in undersea mobility capabilities.......... 85
Cyber research of embedded systems....................... 86
Defense microelectronics................................. 86
Department of Defense unmanned aircraft system operations
in the National Airspace System........................ 87
Design research to improve safety of health information
technology............................................. 88
Detection of non-signature based cyber threats........... 89
Diluted nerve agent laboratory decertification........... 89
Directed Energy Missile Defense Program.................. 90
Early development activities to improve acquisition
outcomes............................................... 90
Foreign materiel exploitation............................ 91
Ground-based Midcourse Defense........................... 91
Information Technology Discharge Solutions............... 92
Innovation program at the Defense Information Systems
Agency................................................. 92
Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense...................... 93
Medical countermeasures advanced development and
manufacturing.......................................... 93
Medium Extended Altitude Defense System.................. 94
Mitochondrial research................................... 94
Modeling and simulation for cyber........................ 95
Modeling and Simulation Grand Challenges................. 95
National Defense Education Program....................... 95
National Defense University research program............. 96
Non-lethal weapons and irregular warfare................. 97
Phoenix program.......................................... 97
Physical barrier protection.............................. 97
Plan for testing of the missile defense systems against
accidental or unauthorized launches originating from
the Russian Federation or the People's Republic of
China.................................................. 98
Potential threats posed by open source publication of
medical research....................................... 98
Precision Tracking Space System.......................... 99
Production of critical materials for protection against
chemical, biological, and radiological agents.......... 99
Rapid Innovation Fund.................................... 100
Report by Secretary of Defense on SM-3 IIB Missile....... 100
Report on fragility in the missile defense industrial
base................................................... 100
Report on Space-Based Interceptors....................... 101
Report on U.S. European Phased Adaptive Approach spending
and U.S. export controls............................... 102
Risk mitigation for enterprise resource planning systems. 102
Sea-based X-band radar................................... 103
SM-3 IB missile.......................................... 103
SM-3 IIA Development..................................... 103
SM-3 IIB missile......................................... 104
U.S. Missile Defense data sharing with Israel............ 104
U.S. Northern Command report on plan to enhance Ground-
based Midcourse Defense reliability and discrimination
and change shot doctrine............................... 105
Use of bone samples in research.......................... 105
Vertical lift platform technologies...................... 105
Weapons of Mass Destruction Defeat Technologies.......... 106
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 106
Overview................................................... 106
Items of Special Interest.................................. 106
Testing of information system controls................... 106
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 107
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 107
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 107
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 107
Section 211--Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Bomber
Aircraft Nuclear Certification Requirement............... 107
Section 212--Unmanned Combat Air System.................... 107
Section 213--Extension of Limitation on Availability of
Funds for Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and
Strike System Program.................................... 107
Section 214--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Future
Manned Ground Moving Target Indicator Capability of the
Air Force................................................ 107
Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Milestone A Activities for the MQ-18 Unmanned Aircraft
System................................................... 108
Section 216--Vertical Lift Platform Technology
Demonstrations........................................... 108
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 108
Section 221--Procurement of AN/TPY-2 Radars................ 108
Section 222--Development of Advanced Kill Vehicle.......... 109
Section 223--Missile Defense Site on the East Coast........ 109
Section 224--Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System......... 110
Section 225--Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Interceptor
Test..................................................... 110
Section 226--Deployment of SM-3 IIB Interceptors on Land
and Sea.................................................. 110
Section 227--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program.. 111
Section 228--Sea-Based X-Band Radar........................ 111
Section 229--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the MEADS
Program.................................................. 111
Section 230--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Phased, Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense in Europe... 112
Section 231--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Precision Tracking Space System.......................... 113
Section 232--Plan To Improve Discrimination and Kill
Assessment Capability of Ballistic Missile Defense
Systems.................................................. 115
Section 233--Plan To Increase Rate of Flight Tests of
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System.................... 115
Section 234--Report on Regional Missile Defense
Architectures............................................ 115
Section 235--Use of Funds for Conventional Prompt Global
Strike Program........................................... 116
Section 236--Transfer of Aegis Weapon System Equipment to
Missile Defense Agency................................... 116
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 116
Section 241--Study on Electronic Warfare Capabilities of
the Marine Corps......................................... 116
Section 242--National Research Council Review of Defense
Science and Technical Graduate Education Needs........... 116
Section 243--Report on Three-Dimensional Integrated Circuit
Manufacturing Capabilities............................... 116
Section 244--Report on Efforts To Field New Directed Energy
Weapons.................................................. 117
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 117
Section 251--Eligibility for Department of Defense
Laboratories To Enter into Educational Partnerships with
Educational Institutions in Territories and Possessions
of the United States..................................... 117
Section 252--Regional Advanced Technology Clusters......... 117
Section 253--Briefing on Power and Energy Research
Conducted at University Affiliated Research Center....... 117
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 117
OVERVIEW....................................................... 117
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 119
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 119
Office of Net Assessment................................... 119
Reduction in Army Depot Maintenance Due to Carryover....... 120
Energy Issues................................................ 121
Energy and Fuel Budget Justification....................... 121
Marine Energy Technologies................................. 122
Navy Hybrid Electric Technology............................ 122
Procurement Procedures To Incorporate the Use of Fuel Cells 122
Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 123
Army Management of the Organic Industrial Base............. 123
Consolidated Guidance for Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected
Vehicle Sustainment...................................... 123
Corrosion Mitigation Information Sharing................... 124
Department of Defense Counterfeit Parts.................... 124
Depot Maintenance Carryover Definition..................... 125
Operating and Support Cost Estimation Reporting............ 125
Testing and Evaluation of Materials Degradation............ 126
Safety and Security Standards for Transportation Protective
Service (TPS) Commercial Carriers........................ 126
Surveying and Mapping...................................... 127
Readiness Issues............................................. 127
Analysis of Readiness Trends............................... 127
Army Immersive Gaming and Simulation Training Architecture. 128
Army Rotary Wing Aviation Water Egress Training............ 129
Chemical Protective Over-Garment Stockpile................. 129
Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program............................ 129
Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Training............... 130
Defense Cultural Training.................................. 131
Maintenance and Sustainment Readiness...................... 131
MC-12W Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Aircraft Program......................................... 132
Operation and Maintenance Budget Transparency Requirements. 132
Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment.............. 133
Paramedic Training and Certification for Army Medical
Evacuation Aircrews...................................... 133
Simulated Tactical Flight Training......................... 134
Space Training............................................. 134
Strategic Mobility Study Plan.............................. 135
Training Range Encroachment................................ 135
Unmanned Aircraft Training Strategic Plan.................. 136
Other Matters................................................ 137
Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium....................... 137
Capital Investment Program................................. 137
Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability
Office Information Access................................ 137
Consolidated Guidance for Equipment Retrograde and
Disposition.............................................. 138
Contracted Hospitality and Food Services................... 139
Defense Biometrics......................................... 139
Digitization of Defense Media Activity Material............ 139
Disposal of Department of Defense Computers................ 140
Joint Airborne Hazards Action Plan......................... 140
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 140
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 140
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 140
Section 302--Authorization of Appropriations of Funds for
Inactivation Execution of U.S.S. Enterprise.............. 140
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions.............. 141
Section 311--Training Range Sustainment Plan and Training
Range Inventory.......................................... 141
Section 312--Modification of Definition of Chemical
Substance................................................ 141
Section 313--Exemption of Department of Defense from
Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement................. 141
Section 314--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Procurement of Alternative Fuel.......................... 141
Section 315--Plan on Environmental Exposures to Members of
the Armed Forces......................................... 141
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 141
Section 321--Expansion and Reauthorization of Multi-Trades
Demonstration Project.................................... 141
Section 322--Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair............ 142
Subtitle D--Readiness........................................ 142
Section 331--Intergovernmental Support Agreements with
State and Local Governments.............................. 142
Section 332--Extension and Expansion of Authority To
Provide Assured Business Guarantees to Carriers
Participating in Civil Reserve Air Fleet................. 142
Section 333--Expansion and Reauthorization of Pilot Program
for Availability of Working-Capital Funds for Product and
Process Improvements..................................... 142
Section 334--Center of Excellence for the National Guard
State Partnership Program................................ 142
Subtitle E--Reports.......................................... 143
Section 341--Report on Joint Strategy for Readiness and
Training in a C4ISR-Denied Environment................... 143
Section 342--Comptroller General Review of Annual
Department of Defense Report on Prepositioned Materiel
and Equipment............................................ 143
Section 343--Modification of Report on Maintenance and
Repair of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards................... 143
Section 344--Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General
Report on Department of Defense Service Contract
Inventory................................................ 143
Section 345--GAO Report Reviewing Methodology of Department
of Defense Relating to Costs of Performance by Civilian
Employees, Military Personnel, and Contractors........... 143
Section 346--Report on Medical Evacuation Policies......... 143
Subtitle F--Limitations and Extensions of Authority.......... 144
Section 351--Repeal of Authority To Provide Certain
Military Equipment and Facilities To Support Civilian Law
Enforcement and Emergency Response....................... 144
Section 352--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Disestablishment of Aerospace Control Alert Locations.... 144
Section 353--Limitation on Authorization of Appropriations
for the National Museum of the United States Army........ 144
Section 354--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Retirement or Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers
or Dock Landing Ships.................................... 144
Section 355--Renewal of Expired Prohibition on Return of
Veterans Memorial Objects Without Specific Authorization
in Law................................................... 144
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 145
Section 361--Retirement, Adoption, Care, and Recognition of
Military Working Dogs.................................... 145
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 145
OVERVIEW....................................................... 145
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 146
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 146
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 146
Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength
Minimum Levels........................................... 147
Section 403--Limitations on End Strength Reductions for
Regular Component of the Army and Marine Corps........... 147
Section 404--Exclusion of Members Within the Integrated
Disability Evaluation System from End Strength Levels for
Active Forces............................................ 147
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 148
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 148
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 148
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 148
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2013 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 149
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 150
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 150
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 150
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 150
OVERVIEW....................................................... 150
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 151
Assistance for Service Members Transitioning to the Civilian
Sector..................................................... 151
Award of Prisoner-of-War Medal to Service Members Held at
Wauwilermoos, Switzerland.................................. 151
Biometric Identification for Recruiting...................... 152
Comptroller General Review of the Secretary of Defense's
Efforts To Increase the Capability and Capacity of the
Department of Defense To Account for Missing Persons....... 153
Department of Defense Outreach Efforts To Increase the Hiring
of Wounded Warriors........................................ 154
Fair Treatment for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
Service Members............................................ 154
Increased Flexibility of Military Families To Choose
Enrollment of Their Dependents in Local Educational
Agencies................................................... 154
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps...................... 155
Marketing and Advertising for Recruiting..................... 156
Military Technician (Dual Status)............................ 156
Private John Sipe Medal of Honor Review...................... 156
Recognition for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Pilots............. 156
Recognition for the Surviving Children of Those Who Die While
Serving Our Nation......................................... 157
Report on Metrics To Track Sexual Assault.................... 157
Robust Diversity Outreach Efforts for Officer Accessions..... 157
Support for Naval Heritage Initiatives....................... 158
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.......................... 158
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 159
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally............... 159
Section 501--Limitation on Number of Navy Flag Officers on
Active Duty.............................................. 159
Section 502--Exception to Required Retirement After 30
Years of Service for Regular Navy Warrant Officers in the
Grade of Chief Warrant Officer, W-5...................... 159
Section 503--Air Force Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains. 159
Section 504--Extension of Temporary Authority To Reduce
Minimum Length of Active Service as a Commissioned
Officer Required for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer.. 159
Section 505--Temporary Increase in the Time-in-Grade
Retirement Waiver Limitation for Lieutenant Colonels and
Colonels in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
Commanders and Captains in the Navy...................... 159
Section 506--Modification to Limitations on Number of
Officers for Whom Service-in-Grade Requirements May Be
Reduced for Retirement in Grade Upon Voluntary Retirement 160
Section 507--Diversity in Military Leadership and Related
Reporting Requirements................................... 160
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 160
Section 511--Codification of Staff Assistant Positions for
Joint Staff Related to National Guard and Reserve Matters 160
Section 512--Automatic Federal Recognition of Promotion of
Certain National Guard Warrant Officers.................. 160
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 160
Section 521--Modifications to Career Intermission Pilot
Program.................................................. 160
Section 522--Authority for Additional Behavioral Health
Professionals To Conduct Pre-Separation Medical Exams for
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder........................... 161
Section 523--Authority To Accept Voluntary Services To
Assist Department of Defense Efforts To Account for
Missing Persons.......................................... 161
Section 524--Authorized Leave Available for Members of the
Armed Forces Upon Birth or Adoption of a Child........... 161
Section 525--Command Responsibility and Accountability for
Remains of Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps Who Die Outside the United States........... 161
Section 526--Report on Feasibility of Developing Gender-
Neutral Occupational Standards for Military Occupational
Specialties Currently Closed to Women.................... 161
Section 527--Compliance with Medical Profiles Issued for
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 162
Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters............... 162
Section 531--Clarification and Enhancement of the Role of
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.................................................... 162
Section 532--Persons Who May Exercise Disposition Authority
Regarding Charges Involving Certain Sexual Misconduct
Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice...... 162
Section 533--Independent Review and Assessment of Uniform
Code of Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of
Sexual Assault Cases..................................... 162
Section 534--Collection and Retention of Records on
Disposition of Reports of Sexual Assault................. 162
Section 535--Briefing, Plan, and Recommendations Regarding
Efforts To Prevent and Respond to Hazing Incidents
Involving Members of the Armed Forces.................... 163
Section 536--Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members
of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members........ 163
Section 537--Use of Military Installations as Sites for
Marriage Ceremonies or Marriage-Like Ceremonies.......... 163
Subtitle E--Member Education and Training Opportunities and
Administration........................................... 164
Section 541--Transfer of Troops-to-Teachers Program from
Department of Education to Department of Defense and
Enhancements to the Program.............................. 164
Section 542--Support of Naval Academy Athletic and Physical
Fitness Programs......................................... 164
Section 543--Department of Defense Inspector General Review
of Access to Military Installations by Representatives of
For-Profit Educational Institutions...................... 164
Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards........................... 164
Section 551--Issuance of Prisoner-of-War Medal............. 164
Section 552--Award of Purple Heart to Members of the Armed
Forces Who Were Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting
Station in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas 164
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters........................................ 165
Section 561--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local
Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees................................................ 165
Section 562--Transitional Compensation for Dependent
Children Who Were Carried During Pregnancy at the Time of
the Dependent-Abuse Offense Committed by an Individual
While a Member of the Armed Forces....................... 165
Section 563--Modification of Authority To Allow Department
of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary
Schools To Enroll Certain Students....................... 165
Section 564--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for
Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces.............. 165
Section 565--Treatment of Relocation of Members of the
Armed Forces for Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage
Refinancing.............................................. 166
Section 566--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Yellow
Ribbon Day............................................... 166
Subtitle H--Improved Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
in the Armed Forces...................................... 166
Section 571--Establishment of Special Victim Teams To
Respond to Allegations of Child Abuse, Serious Domestic
Violence, or Sexual Offenses............................. 166
Section 572--Enhancement to Training and Education for
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response................... 166
Section 573--Enhancement to Requirements for Availability
of Information on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Resources................................................ 166
Section 574--Modification of Annual Department of Defense
Reporting Requirements Regarding Sexual Assaults......... 167
Section 575--Inclusion of Sexual Harassment Incidents in
Annual Department of Defense Reports on Sexual Assaults.. 167
Section 576--Continued Submission of Progress Reports
Regarding Certain Incident Information Management Tools.. 167
Section 577--Briefings on Department of Defense Actions
Regarding Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the
Armed Forces............................................. 167
Section 578--Armed Forces Workplace and Gender Relations
Surveys.................................................. 167
Section 579--Requirement for Commanders To Conduct Annual
Organizational Climate Assessments....................... 167
Section 580--Additional Requirements for Organizational
Climate Assessment....................................... 167
Section 581--Review of Unrestricted Reports of Sexual
Assault and Subsequent Separation of Members Making Such
Reports.................................................. 168
Section 582--Limitation on Release from Active Duty or
Recall to Active Duty of Reserve Component Members Who
Are Victims of Sexual Assault While on Active Duty....... 168
Section 583--Inclusion of Information on Substantiated
Reports of Sexual Harassment in Member's Official Service
Record................................................... 168
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 168
Section 590--Inclusion of Freely Associated States Within
Scope of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program. 168
Section 591--Preservation of Editorial Independence of
Stars and Stripes........................................ 168
Section 592--Sense of Congress Regarding Designation of
Bugle Call Commonly Known as ``Taps'' as National Song of
Remembrance.............................................. 168
Section 593--Recommended Conduct During Sounding of Bugle
Call Commonly Known as ``Taps''.......................... 169
Section 594--Inspection of Military Cemeteries Under the
Jurisdiction of Department of Defense.................... 169
Section 595--Pilot Program To Provide Transitional
Assistance to Members of the Armed Forces with a Focus on
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics......... 169
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 169
OVERVIEW....................................................... 169
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 170
Military Resale Participation in Container Deposit Programs.. 170
Military Retirement Modernization Commission................. 170
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Nonappropriated Fund Contract
Options.................................................... 171
Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officers................... 171
Transition of U.S. Territories from Overseas Housing
Allowance to Basic Allowance for Housing................... 172
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 172
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 172
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2013 Increase in Military Basic
Pay...................................................... 172
Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing for Two-Member
Couples When One Member Is on Sea Duty................... 172
Section 603--No Reduction in Basic Allowance for Housing
for Army National Guard and Air National Guard Members
Who Transition Between Active Duty and Full-Time National
Guard Duty Without a Break in Active Service............. 173
Section 604--Modification of Program Guidance Relating to
the Award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence
Administrative Absence Days to Members of the Reserve
Components Under DOD Instruction 1327.06................. 173
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 173
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 173
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 173
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 174
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 174
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 174
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Amount of Officer
Affiliation Bonus for Officers in the Selected Reserve... 174
Section 617--Increase in Maximum Amount of Incentive Bonus
for Reserve Component Members Who Convert Military
Occupational Specialty To Ease Personnel Shortages....... 174
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Generally... 174
Section 621--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Non-
Medical Attendants for Members Receiving Care in a
Residential Treatment Program............................ 174
Subtitle D--Benefits and Services for Members Being Separated
or Recently Separated.................................... 175
Section 631--Extension of Authority To Provide Two Years of
Commissary and Exchange Benefits After Separation........ 175
Section 632--Transitional Use of Military Family Housing... 175
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 175
Section 641--Charitable Organizations Eligible for
Donations of Unusable Commissary Store Food and Other
Food Prepared for the Armed Forces....................... 175
Section 642--Repeal of Certain Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements Applicable to Commissary and Exchange Stores
Overseas................................................. 175
Section 643--Treatment of Fisher House for the Families of
the Fallen and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force
Base, Delaware, as a Fisher House........................ 175
Section 644--Purchase of Sustainable Products, Local Food
Products, and Recyclable Materials for Resale in
Commissary and Exchange Store Systems.................... 176
Subtitle F--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 176
Section 651--Repeal of Requirement for Payment of Survivor
Benefit Plan Premiums When Participant Waives Retired Pay
To Provide a Survivor Annuity Under Federal Employees
Retirement System and Terminating Payment of the Survivor
Benefit Plan Annuity..................................... 176
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 176
Section 661--Consistent Definition of Dependent for
Purposes of Applying Limitations on Terms of Consumer
Credit Extended to Certain Members of the Armed Forces
and Their Dependents..................................... 176
Section 662--Limitation on Reduction in Number of Military
and Civilian Personnel Assigned to Duty with Service
Review Agencies.......................................... 176
Section 663--Equal Treatment for Members of Coast Guard
Reserve Called to Active Duty Under Title 14, United
States Code.............................................. 177
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 177
OVERVIEW....................................................... 177
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 178
Assessment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operators Mental Health 178
Comptroller General Report on Chiropractic Health Care
Professionals.............................................. 178
Improvements to the Measurement of Vital Signs............... 178
Modification to the Report on Department of Defense Autism
Pilot and Demonstration Projects........................... 179
Optimizing Blood Transfusions for Service Members............ 179
Overseas Medical Research Laboratories....................... 179
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Training for Mental Health
Providers.................................................. 180
Prostate Imaging............................................. 180
Safety of Blood Products..................................... 180
Substance Abuse.............................................. 180
Traumatic Brain Injury....................................... 181
Treatment of Musculoskeletal Injuries........................ 182
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 182
Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits.................. 182
Section 701--Sense of Congress on Nonmonetary Contributions
to Health Care Benefits Made by Career Members of the
Armed Forces and Their Families.......................... 182
Section 702--Extension of TRICARE Standard Coverage and
TRICARE Dental Program for Members of the Selected
Reserve Who Are Involuntarily Separated.................. 182
Section 703--Medical and Dental Care Contracts for Certain
Members of the National Guard............................ 182
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 183
Section 711--Unified Medical Command....................... 183
Section 712--Authority for Automatic Enrollment in TRICARE
Prime of Dependents of Members in Pay Grades Above Pay
Grade E-4................................................ 183
Section 713--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the
Military Departments and Non-Military Health Care
Entities................................................. 183
Section 714--Requirement To Ensure the Effectiveness and
Efficiency of Health Engagements......................... 183
Section 715--Clarification of Applicability of Federal Tort
Claims Act to Subcontractors Employed To Provide Health
Care Services to the Department of Defense............... 183
Section 716--Pilot Program on Increased Third-Party
Collection Reimbursements in Military Medical Treatment
Facilities............................................... 183
Section 717--Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance
Medications for TRICARE for Life Beneficiaries Through
the TRICARE Mail-Order Pharmacy Program.................. 184
Section 718--Cost-Sharing Rates for Pharmacy Benefits
Program of the TRICARE Program........................... 184
Section 719--Review of the Administration of the Military
Health System............................................ 184
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 184
Section 721--Extension of Comptroller General Report on
Contract Health Care Staffing for Military Medical
Treatment Facilities..................................... 184
Section 722--Extension of Comptroller General Report on
Women-Specific Health Services and Treatment for Female
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 185
Section 723--Establishment of TRICARE Working Group........ 185
Section 724--Report on Strategy To Transition to Use of
Human-Based Methods for Certain Medical Training......... 185
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 186
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 186
Comptroller General Report of the Air Force Launch Services
New Entrant Certification Guide............................ 186
Counterfeit Electronic Parts................................. 186
Incentives To Combat Counterfeit Microelectronics............ 186
Incorporation of a Proposal Adequacy Checklist for Certain
Solicitations.............................................. 187
Inspector General Review of Database of Senior Department of
Defense Officials Seeking Employment with Defense
Contractors................................................ 187
Report on Contingency Contracting Lessons Learned............ 187
Review of Department of Defense Processes and Procedures
Related to Federal Retail Excise Tax....................... 188
Service and Support Business Model for Certain Simulation
Capabilities............................................... 189
Ship Maintenance and Modernization........................... 189
Simplified Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial
Items...................................................... 190
Titanium Procurement Restrictions of Domestic Manufacturers.. 191
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 191
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 191
Section 801--Pilot Exemption Regarding Treatment of
Procurements on Behalf of the Department of Defense in
Accordance with the Department of Energy's Work for
Others Program........................................... 191
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations.............................. 192
Section 811--Modification of Time Period for Congressional
Notification of the Lease of Certain Vessels by the
Department of Defense.................................... 192
Section 812--Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified
Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Items...... 192
Section 813--Codification and Amendment Relating to Life-
Cycle Management and Product Support Requirements........ 193
Section 814--Codification of Requirement Relating to
Government Performance of Critical Acquisition Functions. 193
Section 815--Limitation on Funding Pending Certification of
Implementation of Requirements for Competition........... 193
Section 816--Contractor Responsibilities in Regulations
Relating to Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit
Electronic Parts......................................... 194
Section 817--Additional Definition Relating to Production
of Specialty Metals Within the United States............. 194
Section 818--Requirement for Procurement of Infrared
Technologies from National Technology and Industrial Base 194
Section 819--Compliance with Berry Amendment Required for
Uniform Components Supplied to Afghan Military or Afghan
National Police.......................................... 194
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of
Contingency Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan............ 194
Section 821--Extension and Expansion of Authority To
Acquire Products and Services Produced in Countries Along
a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan................... 194
Section 822--Limitation on Authority To Acquire Products
and Services Produced in Afghanistan..................... 195
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 195
Section 831--Enhancement of Review of Acquisition Process
for Rapid Fielding of Capabilities in Response to Urgent
Operational Needs........................................ 195
Section 832--Location of Contractor-Operated Call Centers
in the United States..................................... 196
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 196
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 196
Assessment of Department of Defense Future Years Defense
Program Workforce Requirements............................. 196
Assessment of Legal Authorities for Cyberspace Operations.... 197
Commercial Satellite Imagery................................. 198
Department of Defense Intelligence Activities................ 198
Improving the Strategic Management Plan...................... 199
National Centers of Excellence in Information Assurance
Education and Research..................................... 199
Policy Matters Related to the Defense Supply Chain........... 200
Study on National Air and Space Intelligence Center and
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Management Structure.... 201
The Role of National Guard Cyber Defense Units............... 201
Use of Open Source Information in Intelligence Analysis...... 201
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 202
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 202
Section 901--Additional Duties of Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy and Amendments to Strategic Materials
Protection Board......................................... 202
Section 902--Requirement for Focus on Urgent Operational
Needs and Rapid Acquisition.............................. 202
Section 903--Designation of Department of Defense Senior
Official for Enterprise Resource Planning System Data
Conversion............................................... 203
Section 904--Additional Responsibilities and Resources for
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental
Test and Evaluation...................................... 203
Section 905--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 203
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 204
Section 911--Annual Assessment of the Synchronization of
Segments in Space Programs That Are Major Defense
Acquisition Programs..................................... 204
Section 912--Report on Overhead Persistent Infrared
Technology............................................... 204
Section 913--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Implement
International Agreement on Space Activities That Has Not
Been Ratified by the Senate or Authorized by Statute..... 205
Section 914--Assessment of Foreign Components and the Space
Launch Capability of the United States................... 206
Section 915--Report on Counterspace Technology............. 206
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Activities.................. 206
Section 921--Authority To Provide Geospatial Intelligence
Support to Certain Security Alliances and Regional
Organizations............................................ 206
Section 922--Technical Amendments To Reflect Change in Name
of National Defense Intelligence College to National
Intelligence University.................................. 207
Subtitle D--Total Force Management........................... 207
Section 931--Limitation on Certain Funding Until
Certification That Inventory of Contracts for Services
Has Begun................................................ 207
Section 932--Requirement To Ensure Sufficient Levels of
Government Management, Control, and Oversight of
Functions Closely Associated with Inherently Governmental
Functions................................................ 207
Section 933--Special Management Attention Required for
Certain Functions Identified in Inventory of Contracts
for Services............................................. 207
Subtitle E--Cyberspace-Related Matters....................... 208
Section 941--Military Activities in Cyberspace............. 208
Section 942--Quarterly Cyber Operations Briefings.......... 208
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 208
Section 951--Advice on Military Requirements by Chairman of
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Joint Requirements Oversight
Council.................................................. 208
Section 952--Expansion of Persons Eligible for Expedited
Federal Hiring Following Completion of National Security
Education Program Scholarship............................ 209
Section 953--Annual Briefing to Congressional Defense
Committees on Certain Written Policy Guidance............ 209
Section 954--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive
Reimbursement of Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental
Personnel at Department of Defense Regional Centers for
Security Studies......................................... 209
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 210
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 210
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 210
Counter-Drug Activities in Afghanistan..................... 210
Humanitarian Efforts in U.S. Southern Command.............. 210
National Guard Bureau Counter-Drug Threat Based Resource
Model.................................................... 211
Study on Terrorist Organization Linkages in the Western
Hemisphere............................................... 211
Other Matters................................................ 212
Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Strategic Portfolio Review............................... 212
B61 Gravity Bomb Tail Kit.................................. 212
Comptroller General Review of Combatant Commands........... 213
Counterterrorism Policy and the Growing Threat of Al Qaeda
Regional Affiliates...................................... 213
Defense Business Board Public-Private Cooperation Review... 215
Disposition of Detainees in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan.............................................. 216
Electromagnetic Pulse Survivability........................ 216
Global Rebalancing of U.S. Special Operations Forces....... 217
Humanitarian Mine Action and Security Force Assistance..... 218
Improving Certification and Accreditation for Information
Technology Systems....................................... 219
Independent Report on China's Nuclear Weapons Program...... 220
Information Operations Programs............................ 220
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Cost-Benefit
Analysis Tool............................................ 221
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force.. 221
Military Auxiliary Radio System............................ 222
Navy Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer Program........ 223
Personal Mobile Device Policy.............................. 223
Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination of
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance........... 223
Public Key Infrastructure Tokens for Classified Network
Access................................................... 224
Report by Commander U.S. Strategic Command on Locating and
Targeting Mobile Ballistic Missiles...................... 224
Report on Command and Control Arrangements of the European
Phased Adaptive Approach and NATO Ballistic Missile
Defense Systems.......................................... 225
Report on Joint Task Force for U.S. Northern Command....... 225
Report on the Assessed Efficacy of the Location of X-band
Radar on the East Coast of the United States............. 226
Report Regarding Impacts of W76 Nuclear Warhead Life
Extension Program Delay.................................. 226
Research and Development Assessments in Quadrennial Defense
Review and the Responsibilities of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.................................... 227
Resiliency and Survivability for Nuclear Air-Launched
Cruise Missile Basing.................................... 227
Role of State Government Sponsored Aerospace Infrastructure 227
Use of Existing Authorities for U.S. Special Operations
Forces................................................... 228
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team Reductions.. 229
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 230
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 230
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 230
Section 1002--Budgetary Effects of This Act................ 230
Section 1003--Annual Report on Armed Forces Unfunded
Priorities............................................... 230
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 231
Section 1011--Extension of the Authority of the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau To Establish and Operate
National Guard Counterdrug Schools....................... 231
Section 1012--Reporting Requirement on Expenditures To
Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities.................. 231
Section 1013--Extension of Authority To Support Unified
Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia... 231
Section 1014--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces
To Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting
Counter-Terrorism Activities............................. 231
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 232
Section 1021--Policy Relating to Major Combatant Vessels of
the Strike Forces of the United States Navy.............. 232
Section 1022--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Delayed Annual Naval Vessel Construction Plan............ 232
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 232
Section 1031--Findings on Detention Pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Enacted in 2001.. 232
Section 1032--Findings Regarding Habeas Corpus Rights...... 232
Section 1033--Habeas Corpus Rights......................... 232
Section 1034--Extension of Authority To Make Rewards for
Combating Terrorism...................................... 232
Section 1035--Prohibition on Travel to the United States
for Certain Detainees Repatriated to the Federated States
of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of
the Marshall Islands..................................... 233
Section 1036--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the
Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............... 233
Section 1037--Requirements for Certifications Relating to
the Transfer of Detainees at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other
Foreign Entities......................................... 233
Section 1038--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or
Modify Facilities in the United States To House Detainees
Transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba................................................ 234
Section 1039--Reports on Recidivism of Individuals Detained
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
That Have Been Transferred to Foreign Countries.......... 234
Section 1040--Notice and Report on Use of Naval Vessels for
Detention of Individuals Captured Outside Afghanistan
Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.. 234
Section 1041--Notice Required Prior to Transfer of Certain
Individuals Detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan,
Afghanistan.............................................. 234
Section 1042--Report on Recidivism of Individuals Formerly
Detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan 234
Section 1043--Additional Requirements Relating to the
Transfer of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo to Foreign
Countries and Other Foreign Entities..................... 235
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces................................... 235
Section 1051--Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the
United States............................................ 235
Section 1052--Commitments for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Modernization............................................ 235
Section 1053--Limitation and Report in the Event of
Insufficient Funding for Modernization of Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile................................................ 235
Section 1054--Progress of Modernization.................... 236
Section 1055--Limitation on Strategic Delivery System
Reductions............................................... 236
Section 1056--Prevention of Asymmetry of Nuclear Weapon
Stockpile Reductions..................................... 237
Section 1057--Consideration of Expansion of Nuclear Forces
of Other Countries....................................... 237
Section 1058--Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
Nuclear Facility and Uranium Processing Facility......... 237
Section 1059--Nuclear Warheads on Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles of the United States.................. 237
Section 1060--Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapon Reductions and
Extended Deterrence Policy............................... 238
Section 1061--Improvements to Nuclear Weapons Council...... 238
Section 1062--Interagency Council on the Strategic
Capability of the National Laboratories.................. 238
Section 1063--Report on Capability of Conventional and
Nuclear Forces Against Certain Tunnel Sites.............. 239
Section 1064--Report on Conventional and Nuclear Forces in
the Western Pacific Region............................... 239
Section 1065--Sense of Congress on Nuclear Arsenal......... 239
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 239
Section 1066--Assessment of Department of Defense Use of
Electromagnetic Spectrum................................. 239
Section 1067--Electronic Warfare Strategy of the Department
of Defense............................................... 240
Section 1068--Report on Counterproliferation Capabilities
and Limitations.......................................... 240
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 240
Section 1071--Rule of Construction Relating to Prohibition
on Infringing on the Individual Right To Lawfully
Acquire, Possess, Own, Carry, and Otherwise Use Privately
Owned Firearms, Ammunition, and Other Weapons............ 240
Section 1072--Expansion of Authority of the Secretary of
the Army To Loan or Donate Excess Small Arms for Funeral
and Other Ceremonial Purposes............................ 241
Section 1073--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for
Manufacturing Beyond Low-Rate Initial Production at
Certain Prototype Integration Facilities................. 241
Section 1074--Interagency Collaboration on Unmanned
Aircraft Systems......................................... 241
Section 1075--Authority To Transfer Surplus Mine-Resistant
Ambush-Protected Vehicles and Spare Parts................ 241
Section 1076--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of Aircraft................................... 242
Section 1077--Prohibition on Department of Defense Use of
Nondisclosure Agreements To Prevent Members of the Armed
Forces and Civilian Employees of the Department from
Communicating with Members of Congress................... 242
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 242
Section 1081--Bipartisan Independent Strategic Review Panel 242
Section 1082--Notification of Delayed Reports.............. 243
Section 1083--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 243
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 243
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 243
Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System............... 243
Guidance Regarding the Conversion of Performance of Certain
Functions.................................................. 243
National Security Education Program.......................... 244
Pay Parity for Department of Defense Federal Wage System
Employees Employed at Joint Military Institutions.......... 244
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 244
Subtitle A--General Provisions............................... 244
Section 1101--Expansion of Personnel Management Authority
Under Experimental Program with Respect to Certain
Scientific and Technical Positions....................... 244
Section 1102--Authority To Pay for the Transport of Family
Household Pets for Federal Employees During Certain
Evacuation Operations.................................... 245
Section 1103--Extension of Authority To Fill Shortage
Category Positions for Certain Federal Acquisition
Positions for Civilian Agencies.......................... 245
Section 1104--One-Year Extension of Authority To Waive
Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation
on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas... 245
Section 1105--Policy on Senior Mentors..................... 245
Subtitle B--Interagency Personnel Rotations.................. 246
Section 1111--Interagency Personnel Rotations.............. 246
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 246
OVERVIEW....................................................... 246
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 248
Accountability and Stewardship of Department of Defense
Reconstruction Activities in Afghanistan................... 248
Afghan National Security Forces.............................. 248
Bilateral Security Agreement with Afghanistan................ 249
Challenges with Military-to-Military and Security Force
Assistance Efforts......................................... 250
Commendation for Operation Unified Protector................. 251
Competitive Strategies Study................................. 251
Comptroller General Review of Use of General Purpose Forces
and Special Operations Forces for Security Force Assistance 252
Concerns About Supporting Data on Impact and Sustainability
of Authorities Relating to Program To Build the Capacity of
Foreign Military Forces.................................... 253
Counter Lord's Resistance Army and Related Operations........ 254
Developments in Syria........................................ 254
European Union Support for Arms Embargo on the People's
Republic of China.......................................... 255
Funding Source for the Authority for Support of Special
Operations To Combat Terrorism............................. 255
Geographic Positioning of the Headquarters for U.S. Africa
Command.................................................... 256
Global Security Contingency Fund............................. 256
Ground Lines of Communication Through Pakistan............... 257
Iranian Influence in Iraq.................................... 258
National Guard State Partnership Program..................... 258
Rebalancing to Asia-Pacific Region........................... 259
Report on North Atlantic Treaty Organization Chicago Summit.. 259
Strategic Partnership with the Kingdom of Bahrain............ 260
Strengthening Asia-Pacific Partnerships...................... 260
Study of Post Combat Role of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan...... 261
Support for Security Cooperation Efforts Between the United
States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan................. 261
United States Military Capabilities in the Central Command
Area of Responsibility..................................... 262
United States Participation in Headquarters Eurocorps........ 262
U.S. Military Relationship with People's Republic of China... 263
Use of Security Force Assistance Advisory Teams in
Afghanistan................................................ 263
Village Stability Operations and Afghan Local Police......... 264
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 265
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 265
Section 1201--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Afghanistan.............................................. 265
Section 1202--Modification of Authorities Relating to
Program To Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces. 265
Section 1203--Three-Year Extension of Authority for Non-
Reciprocal Exchanges of Defense Personnel Between the
United States and Foreign Countries...................... 266
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan................................................. 266
Section 1211--One-Year Extension of Authority for
Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support
Provided to United States Military Operations............ 266
Section 1212--Authority To Support Operations and
Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq. 266
Section 1213--One-Year Extension of Authority To Use Funds
for Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan.............. 267
Section 1214--Prohibition on Use of Private Security
Contractors and Members of the Afghan Public Protection
Force To Provide Security for Members of the Armed Forces
and Military Installations and Facilities in Afghanistan. 267
Section 1215--Report on Updates and Modifications to
Campaign Plan for Afghanistan............................ 268
Section 1216--United States Military Support in Afghanistan 268
Section 1217--Extension and Modification of Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Fund................................... 268
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran......................... 269
Section 1221--Declaration of Policy........................ 269
Section 1222--United States Military Preparedness in the
Middle East.............................................. 269
Section 1223--Annual Report on the Military Power of Iran.. 269
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters........................ 270
Section 1231--Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China.... 270
Section 1232--Report on Military and Security Developments
Involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...... 270
Section 1233--Report on Host Nation Support for Overseas
United States Military Installations and United States
Armed Forces Deployed in Country......................... 270
Section 1234--NATO Special Operations Headquarters......... 270
Section 1235--Reports on Exports of Missile Defense
Technology to Certain Countries.......................... 271
Section 1236--Limitation on Funds To Provide the Russian
Federation with Access to Missile Defense Technology..... 271
Section 1237--International Agreements Relating to Missile
Defense.................................................. 271
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 272
OVERVIEW....................................................... 272
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 273
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program.................... 273
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Metrics................. 273
Cooperative Threat Reduction Biological Surveillance Network. 274
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 274
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 274
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 274
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 275
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 275
Working Capital Fund Cash Corpus Concerns.................... 275
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 275
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 275
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 275
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 275
Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 275
Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 276
Section 1405--Defense Inspector General.................... 276
Section 1406--Defense Health Program....................... 276
Section 1407--Cemeterial Expenses.......................... 276
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 276
Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile
Funds.................................................... 276
Section 1412--Additional Security of Strategic Materials
Supply Chains............................................ 276
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 276
Section 1421--Reduction of Unobligated Balances Within the
Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund.......... 276
Section 1422--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...................... 277
Section 1423--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 277
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 277
OVERVIEW....................................................... 277
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 277
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund.......... 277
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 278
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 278
Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 278
Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 278
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 279
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance.................... 279
Section 1505--Military Personnel........................... 279
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................ 279
Section 1507--Defense Health Program....................... 279
Section 1508--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 279
Section 1509--Defense Inspector General.................... 279
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 279
Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 279
Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority................... 279
Subtitle C--Limitations and Other Matters.................... 280
Section 1531--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 280
Section 1532--One-Year Extension of Project Authority and
Related Requirements of Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations in Afghanistan...................... 280
Section 1533--Limitations on Availability of Funds in
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund......................... 280
TITLE XVI--INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS............................... 281
OVERVIEW....................................................... 281
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 282
Audit Agencies............................................... 282
Effect of Drawdown on Manufacturing Industrial Base.......... 282
Export Control Reform........................................ 282
Germanium Wafer Procurement.................................. 283
Impact of Federal Prison Industries on the Clothing and
Textile Industry........................................... 284
Importance of Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program... 284
Inclusion of Small Business Participation Statistics in
Annual Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs............. 284
Inspector General Review of Intellectual Property Issues..... 285
Procurement Technical Assistance Program..................... 285
Recycling of Rare Earth Elements............................. 286
Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier Review........................ 287
Service Disabled Veteran Contracting Within the Department of
Defense.................................................... 287
Small Business Specialists in the Acquisition Workforce...... 288
Strategic Materials Protection Board......................... 288
Transfer of Technology to Foreign Entities................... 289
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 289
Subtitle A--Defense Industrial Base Matters.................. 289
Section 1601--Disestablishment of Defense Materiel
Readiness Board.......................................... 289
Section 1602--Assessment of Effects of Foreign Boycotts.... 290
Section 1603--Advancing Innovation Pilot Program........... 290
Section 1604--National Security Strategy for National
Technology and Industrial Base........................... 290
Subtitle B--Department of Defense Activities Related to Small
Business Matters......................................... 291
Section 1611--Pilot Program To Assist in the Growth and
Development of Advanced Small Business Concerns.......... 291
Section 1612--Role of the Directors of Small Business
Programs in Requirements Development and Acquisition
Decision Processes of the Department of Defense.......... 291
Section 1613--Small Business Advocate for Defense Audit
Agencies................................................. 291
Section 1614--Independent Assessment of Federal Procurement
Contracting Performance of the Department of Defense..... 291
Section 1615--Assessment of Small Business Programs
Transition............................................... 292
Section 1616--Additional Responsibilities of Inspector
General of the Department of Defense..................... 292
Section 1617--Restoration of 1 Percent Funding for
Administrative Expenses of Commercialization Readiness
Program of Department of Defense......................... 292
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Small Business Concerns...... 292
Part I--Procurement Center Representatives................... 292
Section 1621--Procurement Center Representatives........... 292
Section 1622--Small Business Act Contracting Requirements
Training................................................. 292
Section 1623--Acquisition Planning......................... 293
Part II--Goals for Procurement Contracts Awarded to Small
Business Concerns.......................................... 293
Section 1631--Goals for Procurement Contracts Awarded to
Small Business Concerns.................................. 293
Section 1632--Reporting on Goals for Procurement Contracts
Awarded to Small Business Concerns....................... 293
Section 1633--Senior Executives............................ 294
Part III--Mentor-Protege Program............................. 294
Section 1641--Mentor-Protege Programs...................... 294
Section 1642--Government Accountability Office Report...... 294
Part IV--Transparency in Subcontracting...................... 294
Subpart A--Limitations on Subcontracting..................... 294
Section 1651--Limitations on Subcontracting................ 294
Section 1652--Penalties.................................... 294
Section 1653--Conforming Amendments........................ 295
Section 1654--Regulations.................................. 295
Subpart B--Subcontracting Plans.............................. 295
Section 1655--Subcontracting Plans......................... 295
Section 1656--Notices of Subcontracting Opportunities...... 295
Section 1657--Regulations.................................. 295
Subpart C--Publication of Certain Documents.................. 295
Section 1658--Publication of Certain Documents............. 295
Part V--Small Business Concern Size Standards................ 296
Section 1661--Small Business Concern Size Standards........ 296
Part VI--Contract Bundling................................... 296
Section 1671--Consolidation of Provisions Relating to
Contract Bundling........................................ 296
Section 1672--Repeal of Redundant Provisions............... 296
Section 1673--Technical Amendments......................... 296
Part VII--Increased Penalties for Fraud...................... 296
Section 1681--Safe Harbor for Good Faith Compliance Efforts 296
Section 1682--Office of Hearings and Appeals............... 297
Section 1683--Requirement Fraudulent Businesses Be
Suspended or Debarred.................................... 297
Section 1684--Annual Report on Suspensions and Debarments
Proposed by Small Business Administration................ 297
Part VIII--Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Units. 297
Section 1691--Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization.............................................. 297
Section 1692--Small Business Procurement Advisory Council.. 298
Part IX--Other Matters....................................... 298
Section 1695--Surety Bonds................................. 298
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 298
PURPOSE........................................................ 298
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 298
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 299
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required To Be Specified by Law.......................... 299
Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 299
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 299
SUMMARY........................................................ 299
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 299
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 299
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 299
Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 299
Section 2104--Modification of Authority To Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project......................... 299
Section 2105--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Projects....................................... 300
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Projects....................................... 300
Section 2107--Extension of Limitation on Obligation or
Expenditure of Funds for Tour Normalization.............. 300
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 300
SUMMARY........................................................ 300
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 300
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 300
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 300
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 301
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 301
Section 2205--Modification of Authority To Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Project......................... 301
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Projects....................................... 301
Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Projects....................................... 301
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 301
SUMMARY........................................................ 301
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 301
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 301
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 302
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 302
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 302
Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Projects....................................... 302
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 302
SUMMARY........................................................ 302
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 302
Explanation of Funding Adjustments........................... 302
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 303
Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations.................... 303
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 303
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects...... 303
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 303
Section 2404--Modification of Authority To Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Projects........................ 303
Section 2405--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Project........................................ 303
Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations......... 304
Section 2411--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical
Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide.............. 304
Section 2412--Modification of Authority To Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 1997 Project......................... 304
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 304
SUMMARY........................................................ 304
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 304
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 304
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 304
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 304
SUMMARY........................................................ 304
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 305
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations........................................... 305
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 305
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 305
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 305
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 305
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 305
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 306
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 306
Section 2611--Modification of Authority To Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Projects........................ 306
Section 2612--Modification of Authority To Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2011 Project......................... 306
Section 2613--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2009 Project........................................ 306
Section 2614--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Projects....................................... 306
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 306
SUMMARY........................................................ 306
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 307
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 307
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.......... 307
Section 2702--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005.......... 307
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 307
Section 2711--Consolidation of Department of Defense Base
Closure Accounts and Authorized Uses of Base Closure
Account Funds............................................ 307
Section 2712--Air Armament Center, Eglin Air Force Base.... 307
Section 2713--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round..................... 307
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 308
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 308
Alternative Financing Instruments............................ 308
Alternative Site Assessment for the Broadway Complex, San
Diego, California.......................................... 308
Army Energy Initiatives Task Force........................... 309
Briefing on Alternative Power Applications on Military
Installations.............................................. 309
Briefing on Direct Solar and Other Energy Efficient
Technologies Applications on Military Installations........ 310
Building Conversions......................................... 310
Decentralized Steam Generation............................... 310
Department of Defense Energy Demonstration and Validation.... 311
Departments of Defense and Energy Collaboration and
Technology Transition...................................... 311
Department of Defense Energy Technologies.................... 312
Facility Demolition Program.................................. 312
Inclusion of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Energy Security....... 312
Increased Utilization of Third Party Financing for Energy
Efficiency Projects........................................ 312
Leasing Real Property........................................ 313
Local Communities' Capacity To Support Military Installation
Change..................................................... 313
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 314
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 314
Section 2801--Preparation of Military Installation Master
Plans.................................................... 314
Section 2802--Sustainment Oversight and Accountability for
Military Housing Privatization Projects and Related
Annual Reporting Requirements............................ 314
Section 2803--One-Year Extension of Authority To Use
Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects
Outside the United States................................ 314
Section 2804--Treatment of Certain Defense Nuclear Facility
Construction Projects as Military Construction Projects.. 315
Section 2805--Execution of Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Building Replacement Nuclear Facility and
Limitation on Alternative Plutonium Strategy............. 316
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 316
Section 2811--Authority of Military Museums To Accept Gifts
and Services and To Enter into Leases and Cooperative
Agreements............................................... 316
Section 2812--Clarification of Parties with Whom the
Department of Defense May Conduct Exchanges of Real
Property at Certain Military Installations............... 316
Section 2813--Indemnification of Transferees of Property at
Any Closed Military Installation......................... 317
Section 2814--Identification Requirement for Entry on
Military Installations................................... 317
Section 2815--Plan To Protect Critical Department of
Defense Critical Assets from Electromagnetic Pulse
Weapons.................................................. 317
Subtitle C--Energy Security.................................. 317
Section 2821--Congressional Notification for Contracts for
the Provision and Operation of Energy Production
Facilities Authorized To Be Located on Real Property
Under the Jurisdiction of a Military Department.......... 317
Section 2822--Continuation of Limitation on Use of Funds
for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Gold or Platinum Certification and Expansion To Include
Implementation of ASHRAE Building Standard 189.1......... 317
Section 2823--Availability and Use of Department of Defense
Energy Cost Savings To Promote Energy Security........... 317
Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment........... 318
Section 2831--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funding To
Support Community Adjustments Related to Realignment of
Military Installations and Relocation of Military
Personnel on Guam........................................ 318
Section 2832--Certification of Military Readiness Need for
Firing Range on Guam as Condition on Establishment of
Range.................................................... 318
Section 2833--Repeal of Conditions on Use of Funds for Guam
Realignment.............................................. 318
Subtitle E--Land Conveyances................................. 318
Section 2841--Modification to Authorized Land Conveyance
and Exchange, Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska.... 318
Section 2842--Modification of Financing Authority, Broadway
Complex of the Department of the Navy, San Diego,
California............................................... 319
Section 2843--Land Conveyance, John Kunkel Army Reserve
Center, Warren, Ohio..................................... 319
Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Castner Range, Fort Bliss,
Texas.................................................... 319
Section 2845--Modification of Land Conveyance, Fort Hood,
Texas.................................................... 319
Section 2846--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Fort
Lee Military Reservation and Petersburg National
Battlefield, Virginia.................................... 319
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 319
Section 2861--Inclusion of Religious Symbols as Part of
Military Memorials....................................... 319
Section 2862--Redesignation of the Center for Hemispheric
Defense Studies as the William J. Perry Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies.............................. 320
Section 2863--Sense of Congress Regarding Establishment of
Military Divers Memorial at Washington Navy Yard......... 320
Section 2864--Gold Star Mothers National Monument,
Arlington National Cemetery.............................. 320
Section 2865--Naming of Training and Support Complex, Fort
Bragg, North Carolina.................................... 320
Section 2866--Naming of Electrochemistry Engineering
Facility, Naval Support Activity Crane, Crane, Indiana... 320
Section 2867--Retention of Core Functions of the Electronic
Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts.. 320
Section 2868--Retention of Core Functions of the Air Force
Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.. 320
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 321
SUMMARY........................................................ 321
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 321
Section 2901--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 321
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 321
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 321
OVERVIEW....................................................... 321
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 321
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 321
Overview................................................... 321
Weapons Activities......................................... 322
Consideration and Incorporation of Surety Features in
Life Extension Programs................................ 322
Directed Stockpile Work and Life Extension Program....... 322
Ignition and Support of Other Stockpile Programs......... 322
Prioritization of Resources and Programs................. 323
Work for Others at the Nuclear Security Laboratories..... 324
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 325
Adopting the Gold Standard for Section 123 Agreements.... 325
Assessment of Location and Vulnerability of Highly-
Enriched Uranium....................................... 326
Conversion of Research Reactors.......................... 326
Global Security Through Science Partnership Programs..... 326
Nuclear Security Summit 2012............................. 327
Plutonium Disposition Program and Mixed Oxide Fabrication
Facility............................................... 327
Naval Reactors............................................. 328
Naval Reactors........................................... 328
Report by the Director of Naval Reactors................. 328
Report on potential use of low-enriched uranium for naval
reactors............................................... 329
Office of the Administrator................................ 329
Governance, Management, and Oversight of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise.................................... 329
National Nuclear Security Administration Budget
Categories............................................. 331
Nuclear Security Laboratories as Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers....................... 331
Public Release of Management and Operating Contractor
Performance Evaluations................................ 332
Report and implementation actions for findings and
recommendations related to governance, management, and
oversight of the nuclear security enterprise........... 333
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 333
Overview................................................... 333
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 333
Environmental Management Technology Development Program.. 333
Prioritization of environmental cleanup efforts.......... 334
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant................. 334
Other Defense Activities................................... 335
Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety, and
Security............................................... 335
Review of the Supply Chain Security and Integrity of the
Nuclear Weapons Complex................................ 335
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................. 336
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Blue Ribbon
Commission, and Investigation of Salt Dome Disposal.... 336
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 337
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations......... 337
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 337
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 337
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 337
Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance................ 337
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 337
Section 3111--Authorized Personnel Levels of the Office of
the Administrator........................................ 337
Section 3112--Budget Justification Materials............... 338
Section 3113--Contractor Governance, Oversight, and
Accountability........................................... 339
Section 3114--National Nuclear Security Administration
Council.................................................. 340
Section 3115--Safety, Health, and Security of the National
Nuclear Security Administration.......................... 340
Section 3116--Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear
Weapons.................................................. 343
Section 3117--Improvement and Streamlining of the Missions
and Operations of the Department of Energy and National
Nuclear Security Administration.......................... 344
Section 3118--Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of
Management and Operating Contracts....................... 344
Section 3119--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield
Campaign................................................. 345
Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Global Security Through Science Partnerships Program..... 345
Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security................. 346
Section 3122--Two-Year Extension of Schedule for
Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium at Savannah River
Site, Aiken, South Carolina.............................. 346
Subtitle C--Improvements to National Security Energy Laws.... 346
Section 3131--Improvements to the Atomic Energy Defense Act 346
Section 3132--Improvements to the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act....................................... 346
Section 3133--Clarification of the Role of the
Administrator for Nuclear Security....................... 346
Section 3134--Consolidated Reporting Requirements Relating
to Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and
Infrastructure........................................... 347
Section 3135--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements..... 348
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 348
Section 3141--Notification of Nuclear Criticality and Non-
Nuclear Incidents........................................ 348
Section 3142--Reports on Lifetime Extension Programs....... 348
Section 3143--National Academy of Sciences Study on Peer
Review and Design Competition Related to Nuclear Weapons. 349
Section 3144--Report on Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Programs................................................. 350
Section 3145--Study on Reuse of Plutonium Pit.............. 350
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 351
Section 3151--Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment To
Ensure Nuclear Safety.................................... 351
Section 3152--Advice to President and Congress Regarding
Safety, Security, and Reliability of United States
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile and Nuclear Forces............. 351
Section 3153--Classification of Certain Restricted Data.... 352
Section 3154--Independent Cost Assessments for Life
Extension Programs, New Nuclear Facilities, and Other
Matters.................................................. 352
Section 3155--Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Pit Production
Requirement.............................................. 352
Section 3156--Intellectual Property Related to Uranium
Enrichment............................................... 353
Section 3157--Sense of Congress on Competition and Fees
Related to the Management and Operating Contracts of the
Nuclear Security Enterprise.............................. 354
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 354
OVERVIEW....................................................... 354
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 354
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 354
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 354
Section 3202--Improvements to the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.................................. 354
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 356
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 356
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 356
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 356
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 356
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National
Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year
2013..................................................... 356
Section 3502--Application of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation............................................... 356
Section 3503--Procurement of Ship Disposal................. 356
Section 3504--Limitation of National Defense Reserve Fleet
Vessels to Those over 1,500 Gross Tons................... 356
Section 3505--Donation of Excess Fuel to Maritime Academies 356
Section 3506--Clarification of Heading..................... 357
Section 3507--Transfer of Vessels into the National Defense
Reserve Fleet............................................ 357
Section 3508--Amendments Relating to the National Defense
Reserve Fleet............................................ 357
Section 3509--Extension of Maritime Security Fleet Program. 357
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 357
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 357
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 358
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 410
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 444
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 472
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 474
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 479
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 500
DEPARTMENTAL DATA................................................ 511
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 511
Communications from Other Committees............................. 515
Fiscal Data...................................................... 529
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 529
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 530
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 530
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 530
Oversight Findings............................................... 530
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 530
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 532
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 532
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 532
Committee Votes.................................................. 532
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 555
Additional Views
Additional Views of Representative Loretta Sanchez............. 556
Additional Views of Representative Hank Johnson................ 556
Dissenting Views
Dissenting Views of Representative John R. Garamendi........... 558
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-479
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
_______
May 11, 2012.--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 AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4310]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013,
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 2013 for procurement and for research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2013: (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 2013 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2013 for the Maritime Administration.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, 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 bill reflects the House Armed Services Committee's
steadfast support of the courageous, professional, and
dedicated men and women of the United States Armed Forces and
the committee's appreciation for the sacrifices they make to
accomplish their required missions. Events of the last year--
ranging from on-going operations in Afghanistan, support to
Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, robust counter-terrorism
efforts around the globe, to time-sensitive disaster and
humanitarian responses--serve to highlight the United States
military's flexibility and responsiveness in defending our
nation's interests and addressing security challenges, wherever
and whenever they may arise. The committee understands that the
capabilities of our Armed Forces are underpinned by the
dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration, as well as the defense industrial base. Each of
these elements is required to enable the U.S. military to be
the guarantor of peace and economic security that it has been
for generations. 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
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
The committee considers it critical that the capabilities
and capacity of the armed forces continue to improve so they
can accomplish the full range of diverse 21st century missions,
minimize risks associated with such challenges and effectively
engage in hostilities, when necessary, as far from American
shores as possible. Thus, the committee's top priority remains
ensuring that our military personnel receive the best
equipment, weapons systems and training possible. As such, H.R.
4310 would provide for both near and longer-term military
personnel and force structure requirements.
As terrorists have decentralized and sought new safe havens
from which to carry out attacks on U.S. soil, Congress acted
last year to ensure our military men and women risking their
lives to defend us from such attacks are on solid legal ground.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) reaffirmed the military's authority to
detain terrorists who are part of or substantially supporting
al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. This year, through
the incorporation of the Right to Habeas Corpus Act, the bill
makes clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that any person detained
in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force will have his day in court. The committee bill
also includes several additional provisions to strengthen
detention policies and procedures.
The committee bill also includes a subtitle regarding the
Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee is concerned about
Iranian actions that may destabilize the security situation in
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Republic of Iraq, and
the Syrian Arab Republic. Moreover, the committee is
discouraged by Iran's continuing commitment to its nuclear
weapon program, in spite of increasing international pressure
and sanctions. Therefore, the bill seeks to clarify that the
United States should use all elements of national power,
including military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from
threatening the United States, our allies, or its neighbors
with a nuclear weapon. Moreover, the bill requires the
President to develop a plan to enhance the credibility of U.S.
military capabilities to counter Iranian military aggression
and its nuclear weapon program, including military exercises
and the prepositioning of supplies.
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 extends the 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 bill also
includes a requirement for the Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command to provide an annex to this report that identifies any
gaps in intelligence, capabilities, capacity, or authority to
address threats from DPRK.
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.
The committee bill authorizes appropriations for aircraft,
ground vehicles, shipbuilding, missile defense, military space
assets, force protection equipment. The bill further enables
and fully funds U.S. Special Operations Forces. The committee
also authorizes robust funding for defense research and
development to ensure the Department meets future defense
needs.
With the nation at war, but still preparing for an
uncertain future security environment, the committee further
addresses adversarial use of the internet as a new battlespace.
The committee includes a provision that would affirm the
Defense Department's authority to use cyberspace to confront
certain threats. The committee also maintains a focus on
increasing oversight of cyberspace operations, as well as
fostering a better understanding of the challenges facing the
Department when operating in cyberspace by also calling for
quarterly operational briefings, an assessment of the legal
authorities and policy challenges in conducting full spectrum
cyber operations, and a briefing on the National Guard's role
in providing cyber defense capabilities.
The ballistic missile threat continues to increase both
qualitatively and quantitatively. The committee bill would
provide additional resources for development, testing and
fielding of missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland,
including a new East Coast site for missile defense, and
support the implementation of the Administration's European
phased adaptive approach for missile defense, with increased
focus on equitable distribution of the costs of the system with
our allies who would benefit from its defense capability.
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 provides
additional funds beyond the Administration's budget request to
meet the promised level of funding for nuclear modernization
activities, including nuclear warhead life extension programs,
consistent with the Administration's pledge during ratification
of the New START treaty. The committee bill would also hold the
Administration to its promises for the next generation
ballistic missile submarine, would require the next generation
bomber to be nuclear-capable, and would require that the
Administration ensure the next generation cruise missile be
nuclear capable. Moreover, the bill would address long-standing
and well-documented problems related to governance, management,
and oversight of the nation's nuclear security enterprise.
Preserving Key Capabilities in a Time of Fiscal Austerity
In April, 2011, the President announced his intention to
seek over $400.0 billion in savings within the Department of
Defense over the next decade. Subsequently, the Congress passed
the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) in August, 2011. The BCA
significantly reduced discretionary spending across the Federal
Government and for the military in particular. The President's
budget request for national defense for fiscal year 2013 is
$51.0 billion less than the President's estimated fiscal year
2013 requirement for national defense contained in last year's
budget request.
The committee acknowledges that hard choices will have to
be made to prioritize capabilities that allow our military to
remain flexible, responsive, and decisive in any engagement.
However, the committee recommends changes to the President's
proposed force structure, in order to preserve depth and
capacity within the force. For example, the committee is
concerned with the Navy's overall size of the fleet and
sustained demand for naval forces, particularly in light of the
strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific. In fiscal year 2013, the
budget request proposed to retire four additional Ticonderoga-
class guided missile cruisers well before the end of their
expected service life. The committee has reinstated the
requisite funding to operate and maintain, modernize and
upgrade the U.S.S. Cowpens (CG 63), U.S.S. Anzio (CG 68), and
the U.S.S. Vicksburg (CG 69) in fiscal year 2013 and expects
the Navy to properly maintain these critical assets in the
fleet in the future. The committee notes that it is less costly
to maintain existing assets and supports providing the correct
naval capabilities and fleet mix through a balance of new
procurement and adequately maintaining the existing force
structure for the length of time for which assets were
initially programmed. In keeping with these concerns, the
committee also authorizes a multi-year procurement for up to 10
Virginia-class submarines and a multi-year procurement for up
to 10 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
Likewise, the committee preserves tactical airlift crucial
to the military's ability to support warfighters on the ground
with agile combat support, such as C-130 Hercules, C-23
Sherpas, and C-27J Spartan aircraft, which were also proposed
for early retirement. H.R. 4310 would also maintain close air
support and ground interdiction capabilities provided by A-10
Warthogs and F-16 Fighting Falcons slated for premature
divestment prior to end of the forecasted service-life of each
aircraft. The bill would retain the Air Force's Global Hawk
Block 30 unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance aircraft as they support the deployed
warfighter, rather than shifting these assets to storage, as
proposed by the budget request. The committee recommends
maintaining the option for additional airborne electronic
warfare capabilities by supporting advance procurement for the
EA-18G Growler. The committee also recommends sustaining
America's heavy armored production base by maintaining minimum
sustained production of Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting
vehicles, and Hercules recovery vehicles. These changes
preserve capability in the Active Component, as well as the
Guard and Reserve, but not at the expense of the readiness of
the Active Component.
In making these changes, the committee heeded the testimony
of the service chiefs, who stressed the importance of ensuring
the United States does not repeat the mistakes of the past by
hollowing force structure in response to budget cuts.
Therefore, for every change to force structure recommended by
this bill includes funding for military personnel and operation
and maintenance costs associated with such force structure.
Moreover, each of these changes was funded within the top line
funding allocation provided by the House-passed fiscal year
2013 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 112.
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 in pharmacy fees, while protecting military families
from steep fee increases in other TRICARE programs. The bill
also provides a 1.7 percent increase in military basic pay.
The committee is concerned with the pace of the reductions
while the United States is still decisively engaged in armed
conflict in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and required
to maintain a robust global security posture. The Army and the
Marine Corps will make the largest reductions over the next 5
years of 72,000 and 20,000, respectively, from their fiscal
year 2012 authorization levels. This bill would limit the
reduction for the Regular Component of the Army and Marine
Corps by no more than 15,000 and 5,000 a year, respectively,
during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.
The committee is also concerned with the reductions in the
Reserve Components. The services have relied heavily on their
respective Reserve Components over the past 10 years of
conflict and have embraced the operational reserve as a
practice versus a concept. It is imperative the Active and
Reserve Components work together as a total force to maintain
the All-Volunteer Force. The committee believes that the
Reserve Components must be an operational reserve, mobilized
periodically for real-world operational missions to maintain
and sustain the level of skills and competence so that they are
capable of responding to crises or combat requirements. To
achieve this objective, the committee supports sustaining a
robust and viable force structure mix between the Active and
Reserves to ensure the dwell time goals of 1 to 3 for Active
and 1 to 5 for Reserves are met during peace and war.
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.
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. Over the past year, in order to enhance the
committee's oversight of fiscal responsibility within the
Department of Defense and to identify opportunities to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse, the committee established both the
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform
and the Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense
Industry, which examined the role of defense regulations and
the defense auditing agencies. The findings of both panels have
guided the committee's consideration of legislation included in
this bill.
Incentivizing Competition
The committee remains steadfast in its belief that
competition reduces costs, increases quality, and improves
vendor performance. For this reason, the committee recommends a
provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating or expending more than 80 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the Secretary
of Defense for fiscal year 2013 until such time as the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the Department of Defense is implementing the requirements
of section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), as amended. This section would
also require that the certification be accompanied by a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the
processes and procedures that have been implemented across the
military departments and defense agencies to maximize
competition throughout the life-cycle of major defense
acquisition programs.
Similarly, the committee expresses that assured access to
space remains critical to national security and the Air Force's
launch plan should maintain mission assurance, stabilize the
industrial base, reduce costs, and provide opportunities for
competition.
Furthermore, the Panel on Business Challenges in the
Defense Industry, appointed by Chairman Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith, specifically examined
barriers to entry, contracting and regulatory burdens, and
opportunities to strengthen the defense industrial base. As a
result of the Panel's efforts, H.R. 4310 includes several
provisions that are specifically aimed at fostering the defense
industrial base and increasing opportunities for small and
midsize businesses in order to increase competition.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 results from hearings
that began on February 15, 2012, and that were completed on
March 29, 2012. The full committee conducted 9 sessions. In
addition, a total of 15 sessions were conducted by 6 different
subcommittees.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 9, 2012, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 4310, as amended, by a vote of 56-
5.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4310. 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
$631.6 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee for fiscal year 2013. Of this amount,
$525.3 billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense
programs, $88.5 billion was requested for the overseas
contingency operations requirements covering the entire fiscal
year, and $17.8 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 $635.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, including
$88.5 billion for overseas contingency operations. The base
committee authorization of $546.8 billion is a $0.2 billion
decrease below the levels provided for in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
The following table summarizes the committee's recommended
discretionary authorizations by appropriation account for
fiscal year 2013 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 2013 is $650.6 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 2013, 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 2013 contained $98.8
billion for procurement. This represents a $4.8 billion
increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2012.
The committee recommends authorization of $99.1 billion, an
increase of $1.7 billion from the fiscal year 2013 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
procurement program are identified in division D of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $5.9
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $5.9 billion, no change to the
budget request, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
UH-72A Lakota Helicopter
The committee notes that the UH-72A Lakota Helicopter has
proven to be a capable multi-role aircraft used in support of
the Army National Guard's unique set of missions including,
border security, disaster response, medical evacuation, and
troop transport. The committee is aware that the Army has
completed a survivability analysis and initial cost assessment
on modifications that, if made, would allow the UH-72 to
operate in non-permissive environments. The results of the
analysis indicate that the UH-72A could be an effective and
cost-efficient option to be used in support of additional
operations in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside
the continental United States (OCONUS), and in combat zones in
support of contingency operations. The committee believes that
further assessment should be conducted to evaluate potential
courses of action for expanding the operational spectrum for
the utilization of the Light UH-72A.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to include the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 15, 2013, that identifies where the UH-72A could
provide operational efficiencies in support of permissive and
non-permissive CONUS, OCONUS, and contingency missions. The
report should include, at a minimum, a cost assessment that
includes the costs associated with integrating aircraft
survivability systems, testing costs to qualify the aircraft to
operate in non-permissive environments, and costs associated
with sustaining the aircraft in non-permissive environments.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $1.3
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $60.0 million,
for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Patriot Mods
The budget request contained $199.6 million for Patriot
Mods in Missile Procurement, Army.
In view of the Department of Defense's decision regarding
the Medium Extended Altitude Defense System as noted elsewhere
in this title, the committee remains interested in ensuring
that the Department takes all necessary and appropriate steps
to maintain and improve the Patriot program.
The committee recommends $199.6 million, the full amount
requested, for Patriot Mods.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $1.5
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1.9 billion,
an increase of $382.5 million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Heavy Brigade Combat Team Force Structure and Industrial Base
The committee notes that the Army has announced that it
will decrease end strength over the next 5 years. The decrease
in end strength has forced the Army to also announce plans to
eliminate at least eight active component Brigade Combat Teams
(BCT), reducing the total number from 45 to 37. The active Army
has 17 Heavy BCTs (HBCT), 20 Infantry BCTs, and 8 Stryker BCTs.
The Army has stated that at least two of the eight BCTs
eliminated will be HBCTs. The committee notes that the HBCT,
which is comprised of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting
vehicles, is the only full-spectrum force in the Army's force
structure. With regard to the future utility of heavy forces,
the committee notes a Rand Corporation report from 2010 that
concluded, ``Heavy forces--based on tanks and infantry fighting
vehicles--are key elements of any force that will fight hybrid
enemies that have a modicum of training, organization, and
advanced weapons. Light and medium forces can complement heavy
forces, particularly in urban and other complex terrain; they
do not provide the survivability, lethality, or mobility
inherent in heavy forces. Quite simply, heavy forces reduce
operational risks and minimize friendly casualties.''
The committee is concerned that the Army may eliminate too
many HBCTs based on resource constraints rather than meeting
the needs of combatant commanders. The committee understands
the Army is currently conducting a force structure and BCT mix
analysis, however, it does not believe the results will be
available in time to inform the committee. The committee also
understands the Army is considering adding a third maneuver
battalion back into the Heavy and Infantry BCTs which may also
impact the total amount of BCTs. The committee is supportive of
all BCTs having a third maneuver battalion and notes that the
committee opposed the Army's original decision of two maneuver
battalions per BCT in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452)
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007.
In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee is also
concerned about the Army's proposal to let the HBCT vehicle
production lines go ``cold'' for 3-to-4 years, beginning in
fiscal year 2013, and the associated impact this decision will
have on the industrial base at both the prime contractor and
vendor level. The HBCT industrial base is not dependent upon
one platform. The committee believes insufficient information
is available to the Army and Congress to make an informed
decision on what the potential risks would be of closing HBCT
production lines. The committee needs to understand the
ramifications to the future HBCT industrial base capabilities
regarding the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin
howitzer, Hercules recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicle, and the Ground Combat Vehicle. The committee needs to
be informed of the Army's projected requirements in fiscal year
2017 to maintain a public and private workforce to sustain the
current level of HBCTs, and what capabilities the Army will
need in the future to produce new platforms. The committee also
believes that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) may help to mitigate
some of the risk to the industrial base, but believes FMS alone
will not be enough to ensure that the HBCT industrial base is
maintained at viable levels in the near term. In the absence of
a force mix BCT analysis, and a detailed quantitative analysis
of the impacts to the HBCT industrial base, the committee
recommends adjustments to the Army's budget request elsewhere
in this report.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, or his designee, to brief the congressional defense
committees within 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, on the results of the recent force mix analysis. At a
minimum, the briefing should include the assumptions and
scenarios used to determine the type and mix of Brigade Combat
Teams, the rationale for the force mix, and the risks involved
with the recommended force mix. The committee also directs the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or his designee, to
brief the congressional defense committees within 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, on how the Army's recent
force structure and BCT mix analysis meet the needs of the
combatant commanders, and what the Joint Staff believes are the
potential risks regarding the adequacy of the force mix, if the
assumptions behind the scenarios used do not materialize. In
addition, the committee further directs the Secretary of the
Army, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joints Chief of
Staff, to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees to accompany the fiscal year 2014 budget request, on
the results and impacts of the force mix analysis.
Abrams tank upgrades
The budget request contained $74.4 million for the Abrams
tank upgrade program.
The committee notes that the Army must maintain the ability
for its Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) to overmatch any
possible threat in the future. The committee continues to be
concerned that Abrams tank production is expected to shut down
from fiscal year 2014-16, and that the Army is unsure that the
production line and supporting industrial base would be
available when it starts future upgrades to Abrams tanks. The
Army has completed limited analysis of the impact that the
shutdown will have on the industrial base and is scheduled to
complete a comprehensive analysis in summer 2012. However,
based on data the Army has provided, the committee believes
that the cost to shut down and restart the Abrams production
line will total almost $1.0 billion, and that the Army has not
yet budgeted these funds. The committee believes that the best
course of action would be a combination of the minimum
economical sustainment rate and Foreign Military Sales. The
committee notes that the cost of shutting down and then
restarting the Abrams production line would be significant and
yield nothing. However, for almost the same level of funding,
the Army could keep the Abrams production line ``warm'' while
at the same time modernizing a portion of National Guard Heavy
BCTs to a digital tank capability. Finally, the committee
believes that a viable Heavy BCT industrial base is critical to
national security, and therefore has requested in a standalone
letter that the Comptroller General of the United States review
and report to the committee all of the current and ongoing RAND
analyses as they pertain to the Abrams industrial base.
The committee recommends $255.4 million, an increase of
$181.0 million, for the Abrams tank upgrade program.
Bradley fighting vehicle program
The budget request contained $148.2 million for the Bradley
fighting vehicle program for procurement and installation of
upgrade kits for engineering change proposal (ECP) plans.
The committee is concerned that even with the funds
requested for fiscal year 2013, production of the Bradley
fighting vehicle will shut down as early as 2013, for a minimum
of 3 years, and that the Army is unsure that the production
line and supporting industrial base will be available when it
restarts production of upgraded Bradley fighting vehicles.
Moreover, the committee is concerned about the Army's current
plan to install ECP components in Bradley fighting vehicles
only at unit field locations and its impact on the industrial
base. The committee understands that the Army may have a fiscal
year 2012 funded reset program for the Bradley fighting vehicle
that will take place at the contractor's industrial base
facility. The committee believes that the most prudent course
of action is to execute a portion of the funds for installation
of ECP components at the production base facility in
conjunction with the planned fiscal year 2012 funded reset
program. The Army should also explore opportunities for
accelerating some follow-on ECP capabilities into the current
ECP plan. Additionally, the committee suggests that any Bradley
fighting vehicles in storage at the contractor's facility, and
not yet delivered to the Army, should be programmed to receive
ECP kits prior to delivery to unit locations. The committee
also believes that as part of the production contract any
further production of the Bradley Operation Desert Storm-
Situational Awareness vehicle for the National Guard should be
given priority in fielding ECP kits.
The committee recommends $288.2 million, an increase of
$140.0 million, for the Bradley fighting vehicle program.
Improved recovery vehicle
The budget request contained $107.9 million for the M88A2
improved recovery vehicle program.
The committee is aware that in order to provide greater
protection for soldiers, the Army's current and future fleet of
combat vehicles has grown significantly in weight. As a result,
the M88A1 recovery vehicles are approaching their maximum
capability with the current fleet, and its capability will be
greatly exceeded by the future fleet. While the Army is
examining the need to increase the number of M88A2 recovery
vehicles to support these heavier combat vehicles, with the
potential of adjusting their acquisition objective for M88A2's
based on future force structure, the committee is concerned
that a delay in a decision to either add to the M88A2 inventory
or to completely pure-fleet the vehicles to an all-A2
configuration, could come after the M88 industrial base is
closed. The committee supports the Army's decision to include
funds in the budget request for the procurement of an
additional 31 M88A2 vehicles, but believes additional funds are
necessary to maintain production and reduce the impacts of
stopping production. The committee believes this will provide
the Army with ample time to finalize its force structure and
Brigade Combat Team adjustments and to determine a more
accurate requirement for the procurement of additional M88A2s.
The committee recommends $169.9 million, an increase of
$62.0 million, for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program.
Paladin integrated management program
The budget request contained $206.1 million for the Paladin
integrated management (PIM) program.
The PIM program is scheduled to receive milestone C
authority in June 2013. The current acquisition strategy
includes four years of low-rate initial production (LRIP),
followed by eight years of full-rate production (FRP). The
committee notes that the first FRP is not planned for delivery
until fiscal year 2019, which is more than 6 years after the
milestone C decision, and the last FRP is not planned for
completion until fiscal year 2028. The committee believes this
protracted build and fielding schedule will likely add
significant cost to the overall program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on
various courses of actions for possible acceleration of the PIM
program. At a minimum, the report should include the
possibility and ramifications of a more realistic production
schedule, and the associated funding requirements, that
includes moving from 4 years of LRIP down to 2 years, and the
acceleration of FRP to less than the planned 8 years of
procurement. The report should also identify potential test
efficiencies for efforts required, prior to a full-rate
production decision, to move the FRP decision sooner than
currently planned.
The committee recommends $206.1 million, the full amount
requested, for the PIM program.
Small Arms Modernization and Sustainment
The budget request contained $4.9 million for M249 squad
automatic weapons and modifications, and contained $6.8 million
for M240 medium machine guns and modifications.
The committee understands that small arms modernization is
a component of the U.S. Army's continued effort to modernize
key weapon systems, including the M249 squad automatic weapon
(SAW) and the M240 medium machine gun. The committee believes
the Army has the responsibility to provide the soldier with the
best individual and crew-served weapons, and to continuously
modernize, adapt, and incrementally improve small arms weapon
systems as the threat to deployed military personnel evolves.
The committee notes that small arms are key components to the
survivability and lethality of the warfighter. The committee is
aware that most small arms programs are nearing the end of
their procurement objectives. The committee notes the M249 SAW
and M240 machine guns will complete procurement in fiscal year
2013, and the committee is concerned about the perceived lack
of a long-term sustainment strategy for the small arms
industrial base, specifically the light and medium machine gun
industrial base.
The committee understands there has been significant
investment by industry and the Army in training,
infrastructure, and material required to develop and produce
the highest quality light and medium machine gun weapon
systems. The committee is concerned that any significant break
in production could be detrimental to the small arms industrial
base, and in turn to the readiness of the military services.
The committee needs to better understand the ramifications to
the small arms industrial base capabilities across the Future
Years Defense Program in light of the constraints of the
current fiscal environment. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army to adequately resource the small arms
industrial base in order to prevent any unnecessary breaks in
production.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to perform an objective assessment of the Army's approach
to satisfying light and medium machine gun capability
requirements. The assessment should include a review of current
and projected lightweight and medium machine gun requirements;
assess performance of current systems against requirements;
establish acquisition and life-cycle costs; evaluate cost and
capability of current development and procurement plans; and
consider future requirements and capabilities that can be
acquired today, and those which require research and
development. The committee further directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act on the results of the assessment.
The committee recommends $4.9 million, the full amount of
the request, for M249 squad automatic weapons and
modifications, and $6.8 million, the full amount of the
request, for M240 medium machine guns and modifications.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $1.7
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.6 billion, a decrease of $107.8
million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $6.3
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $6.2 billion, a decrease of $80.0 million, for
fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Army and Marine Corps Multi-Mission Radar Development
The budget request contained $316.3 million for development
and procurement of 15 Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 (EQ-36) counterfire
radar systems. The budget request also contained $33.4 million
for upgrades to the AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel air surveillance radar
system. Elsewhere in this title, the budget request also
contained $165.4 million for development and procurement of the
Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) program.
The committee notes that between fiscal years 2014-17, the
Army plans to allocate $1.0 billion for the EQ-36 system, and
$190.8 million for AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel radar upgrades. During
that same time period, the Marine Corps plans to also allocate
$1.0 billion for the G/ATOR program, which will perform both
counter-fire and air surveillance missions.
The committee notes that the Army and Marine Corps have
very similar requirements for radars to perform counter-fire
and air surveillance missions. The committee is concerned,
however, that the Army remains committed to procuring and
maintaining two separate radars to perform these tasks, while
the Marine Corps is pursuing a single multi-mission radar
system. The committee believes that the Marine Corps' approach
could yield substantial operations and sustainment savings over
the long-term.
The committee notes that the EQ-36 system is currently in
low-rate initial production, and the G/ATOR program is just
entering low-rate initial production. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Army and the Marine Corps to collaborate and
identity overlapping requirements and determine if at some
point in the future, the Army could shift to procurement of the
G/ATOR multi-mission radar rather than having the each service
continue to procure and maintain separate radar systems.
The committee recommends the full amount requested for Army
and Marine Corps multi-mission radar development.
Civil Support Team Information Management System
The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD CST)
currently field an information management system that provides
a common operating picture, promotes information sharing and
real-time collaboration in an emergency situation, and supports
the CST mission of assisting and advising first responders and
facilitating communications with other Federal resources. The
committee believes that this system should be expanded to
follow-on forces, such as the Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and High Explosive Enhanced Response
Force Package and Homeland Defense Response Force units, to
ensure the safety of military personnel and first responders,
while supporting the interoperability necessary to effectively
communicate and operate during large-scale domestic events.
Joint Tactical Radio System Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit Radio
Program
The budget request included $482.2 million for procurement
of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack, and
Small Form Fit (HMS) radios.
The committee understands that the JTRS HMS program of
record includes full and open competition as part of the
program's initial full-rate production. The committee believes
that in the interest of increased competition, it is imperative
that subsequent full-rate production procurements include a
strategy for including any non-program of record vendors that
meet appropriate qualification standards in accordance with
section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The committee encourages
the Army to continue to assess performance requirements. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that all
qualification standards are documented and approved by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology and available to vendors prior to any additional
full-rate procurements. In addition, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by July 31, 2012, on the Army's plan for
production competition for each element of the JTRS program
including potential acquisition strategies for JTRS-tested
capabilities that allow JTRS-tested products from non-program
of record suppliers to be contracted through full and open
competition with the Government in a streamlined manner.
The committee recommends $482.2 million, the full amount of
the request, for JTRS HMS radios.
Network Integration Exercises
The committee applauds the Army's effort to encourage
commercial solutions and innovation through Network Integration
Exercises (NIE). The committee encourages the other military
services to leverage the information gained from the Army's
efforts and consider participating in future NIEs. The
committee also believes that as a result of the lessons learned
from NIEs, additional improvements in acquisition policy should
be made to couple innovative testing with reduced acquisition
time frames. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 15, 2013, that considers potential
acquisition strategies for NIE-tested capabilities that allow
Army NIE-tested products from non-program of record suppliers
to be contracted through full and open competition with the
Government in a streamlined manner.
Spider Alpha Remote Control Units
The budget request contained $36.4 million for procurement
of Spider Alpha Remote Control Units for the Spider Networked
Munitions (Spider) program.
The Spider program is the Army's next generation
alternative anti-personnel landmine, specifically designed to
provide improved flexible force protection capabilities to the
warfighter and to minimize and/or eliminate non-combatant
injuries or deaths resulting from landmines.
The committee notes the Spider Networked Munitions System
program has experienced operational suitability problems during
initial testing and operational evaluations conducted by the
Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. The
committee notes that these problems have been primarily the
result of software issues. The committee is aware that the most
recent limited user test demonstrated progress toward resolving
these deficiencies, but that follow-on operational tests (FOT)
are still required. The committee also notes that the Spider
program's full-rate production decision shifted from fiscal
year 2008 to the third quarter of fiscal year 2012 and could be
further delayed due to scheduled FOTs that resulted from
recurring demonstrated performance deficiencies.
The committee recommends $21.4 million, a decrease of $15.0
million, for procurement of Spider Alpha Remote Control Units.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $227.4
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.
The committee recommends a transfer of this funding to title XV
of this Act.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund are identified in
division D of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $17.1
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $17.2 billion, an increase of $99.0
million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
EA-18G Advance Procurement
The budget request contained no funds for advance
procurement of EA-18G aircraft.
The EA-18G is an electronic attack aircraft that is
replacing the EA-6B aircraft. The committee notes that the
budget request included 12 EA-18G aircraft, which would
complete the current Department of the Navy requirement for an
inventory of 114 EA-18Gs. However, the committee understands
that while the 114 EA-18Gs would replace Navy sea-based and
shore-based EA-6B squadrons, it would not replace the Marine
Corps four shore-based EA-6B squadrons which are planned to be
inactivated by fiscal year 2019. Consequently, the committee
believes the absence of a replacement for the Marine Corps EA-
6B squadrons could result in a shortfall in the Department of
Defense's airborne electronic attack capability, and the
committee encourages the Department of the Navy to include
additional EA-18G aircraft in its budget request for fiscal
year 2014.
The committee recommends $45.0 million for advance
procurement of additional EA-18G aircraft.
Reporting of the April 8, 2000, MV-22 Mishap at Marana, Arizona
The committee notes that subsequent to an April 8, 2000,
MV-22 mishap at Marana Northwest Regional Airport, Arizona, the
Marine Corps released information on July 27, 2000, regarding
the MV-22 accident investigation report. The statement
indicated that a combination of ``human factors'' had caused
the crash of a MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, which resulted in the
loss of 19 Marines, and that, ``Although the report stops short
of specifying pilot error as a cause, it notes that the pilot
of the ill-fated aircraft significantly exceeded the rate of
descent established by regulations for safe flight.'' The
committee understands that subsequent to the release of the
July 27, 2000, statement, many media reports did not make a
distinction between ``human factors'' and ``pilot error'' and
reported that the mishap was the result of ``pilot error''
which, according to the Marine Corps July 27, 2000, public
release, does not accurately describe the combination of human
factors which caused the mishap. The result is potentially more
of the causal factors being attributed to the pilot than
``human factors'' would warrant.
Consequently, the committee encourages the Commandant of
the Marine Corps to continue to work with the committee to
further clarify Marine Corps public statements about the April
8, 2000, MV-22 mishap at Marana Northwest Regional Airport,
Arizona, so that media reporting of the accident more
accurately portrays the causal factors of the accident.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $3.1
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $3.2 billion, an increase of $55.6 million,
for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
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 2013 contained $759.5
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.
The committee recommends authorization of $747.0 million, a
decrease of $12.5 million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $13.6
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $14.5 billion, an increase of
$893.0 million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Littoral Combat Ship
The committee is aware of considerable issues that have
plagued the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program over recent
years. While the Navy has briefed the congressional defense
committees on problems involving the LCS program, the committee
believes that the Navy has not adequately informed Congress to
the full extent possible on program deficiencies, including
mechanical and structural failures. The committee is also
concerned with the lack of transparency regarding these
significant issues as was addressed in the annual report by the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation which stated that its
assessment of the program was limited because the ``program
offices have not released any formal developmental T&E
reports.'' Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to provide a comprehensive briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services within 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act on the LCS program, in a classified
or unclassified session.
Mine Warfare
The committee notes that at a recent symposium, the Chief
of Naval Operations stated that over the years, the Navy's
ability to counter mine warfare threats had ``atrophied,'' and
went on to say the testing of the counter-mine warfare module
for the Littoral Combat Ship is re-establishing a capability in
this area for the Navy.
The committee is pleased this capability is receiving added
interest, but is concerned that the ability to conduct
offensive mine warfare has atrophied as well. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to review the Navy's
offensive mine warfare capabilities and establish an
appropriate course of action to re-establish this capability in
a cost-effective manner.
Navy Shipbuilding Program
The committee is concerned with the Navy's shipbuilding
program. The budget request for fiscal year 2013 Shipbuilding
and Conversion (SCN) account contained $13.7 billion, which is
significantly lower than the $14.9 billion level appropriated
for fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2012, it was forecast that
the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) would include the start
of construction of 57 ships. However, 16 of those ships have
fallen out of the FYDP, reducing new construction starts to 41
ships. The Navy has indicated that they will no longer seek to
build a 313 ship fleet. Additionally, the Navy has proposed
retiring nine additional ships during the FYDP before the end
of their service lives. The committee believes the following
programs are crucial.
CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford class aircraft carrier.
It incorporates improved performance and cost saving
technologies, decreases the crew size by 1,200 personnel, and
saves the Navy over $5.0 billion in total ownership costs for
each ship. The Navy intends to start construction of the first
three ships of the Ford class on a 5-year basis. The committee
encourages the Navy to maintain this schedule with fiscal year
2013 as the first year of incremental funding for CVN-79.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that
would authorize an extension from the current 5-year period to
6 years for the incremental funding of CVN-79 and CVN-80. The
committee also believes it is essential to keep the Nimitz
class aircraft carriers on schedule for their mid-life
Refueling and Complex Overhauls to ensure these ships reach
their planned service life.
The Virginia class submarine program continues to deliver
on cost and well ahead of contractual schedule. Having achieved
a rate of two submarines a year starting in fiscal year 2011,
the committee was concerned to see the rate decrease to one
submarine in fiscal year 2014, and believes this would inject
instability into a stable program. The committee recommends an
increase in fiscal year 2013 advance procurement funds to
facilitate restoring the second submarine in fiscal year 2014.
To achieve that end, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
includes a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the
Navy to enter a multiyear procurement for up to 10 submarines
and authorizes the Secretary to incrementally fund that multi-
year contract.
The Marine Corps has a stated requirement of 38 amphibious
ships but has made an agreement with the Navy that 33
amphibious ships would be sufficient to provide the lift and
forcible entry capabilities they require. There are currently
only 29 amphibious ships in the fleet. Two large deck
amphibious ships are under contract, LHA-6 and LHA-7. The
fiscal year 2013 budget request slid the construction start of
the next large deck amphibious ship, LHA-8, from 2016 to 2017.
Prior to LHA-6, these ships had well decks, which would flood
to launch landing craft. LHA-6 and LHA-7 are designed without
well decks, but a well deck is going into LHA-8. The committee
is concerned that the internal arrangements to accommodate a
well deck are going to change construction significantly,
requiring many drawing changes. The committee encourages the
Navy to get an early start on LHA-8 design with the contractor.
It has been proven that the greater the percentage of a design
that is complete at the start of construction, the more
successful the construction program. The LPD-27 is the last
LPD-17 San Antonio class small deck amphibious ship until the
replacement for the LSD starts. In the fiscal year 2013 plan,
LSD construction has been delayed until after the FYDP. The
committee is concerned that this delay may negatively affect
the industrial base.
In the fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Department of
the Navy has requested authority to begin a multi-year program
for nine DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee includes a provision that would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to award a contract for a
multiyear procurement of up to 10 destroyers. In fiscal year
2016, the Navy intends to start procuring Block III DDG-51
destroyers. This block will incorporate the advanced Air and
Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), which is currently being
competitively evaluated. The committee views AMDR as essential
to pacing the air and missile threat. The Navy has stated that
the DDG-51 hull is sufficient to accommodate the increased
power generation and cooling requirements that AMDR will need,
yet the committee still views this as an area of risk.
With the first two Littoral Combat ships (LCS) delivered to
the fleet, each of a different design, each has had various
problems that are being addressed by the Navy. LCS-1 has had
some cracking and shaft seal problems and LCS-2 has had
problems with galvanic corrosion within the water jets. The
committee is aware that the Navy intends to forward stage up to
four LCS to Singapore, and while supporting the budget request
for four LCS in fiscal year 2013, it encourages the Navy to
ensure the problems discovered to date have technical solutions
and that these solutions are incorporated on forthcoming ships.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Navy shipbuilding
plan is how it will be able to afford the Ohio class
replacement ballistic missile submarine and still have a viable
program for other ships. This will have to be addressed in
coming years. The budget request delayed the start of
construction of the first submarine by 2 years until fiscal
year 2021. This delay means that the ballistic missile
submarine force dips to 10 submarines for almost 10 years in a
couple of decades. To maintain a credible undersea nuclear
deterrent, the committee recommends restoring the research and
development funding that was reduced in the fiscal year 2013
budget request to allow the Department of Defense time to
determine how to keep the program on track. Elsewhere in this
Act, the committee includes a provision that would prevent the
Secretary of the Navy from having fewer than 12 ballistic
missile submarines at a time.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $6.2
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $6.3 billion, an increase of $102.7 million,
for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $1.6
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.5 billion, a decrease of $140.9 million,
for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $11.0
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $11.3 billion, an increase of
$313.7 million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
F-35 Aircraft Program
The budget request contained $2.7 billion in PEs 64800F,
64800N, and 64800M for development of the F-35 aircraft. The
budget request also contained $5.5 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force and Aircraft Procurement, Navy for
procurement of 19 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 4 F-35Cs.
The F-35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition
program within the Department of Defense (DOD), with a current
planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for the Navy, the Marine
Corps, and the Air Force to meet fifth generation U.S. fighter
requirements. The committee continues to support the
requirement for fifth generation fighter aircraft due to
projected increases in the effectiveness and quantities of
threat anti-aircraft systems. The committee notes that without
advanced fifth generation aircraft that the United States may
be significantly limited in its ability to project power in the
future. In addition, the committee believes that the 187 F-22
Raptors currently planned for may not alone provide enough of
this capability.
The F-35 entered engineering and manufacturing development
(EMD) in the first quarter of fiscal year 2002 and is currently
estimated to complete EMD in 2018. Low-rate initial production
of the F-35 began in 2007, with 121 aircraft having been
approved by Congress for production through fiscal year 2012.
As the program has progressed through the EMD phase, a
recurring concern of the committee has been a desire by the
Department to begin aircraft production too early in the EMD
phase and to significantly increase each subsequent year's
production, resulting in a high degree of development and
production concurrency, and the production of a significant
number of aircraft before sufficient demonstration of required
technologies, flight testing and aircraft design stability. The
committee notes that for fiscal year 2006, the Department of
Defense requested $152.4 million for advance procurement for
the first five F-35A aircraft in fiscal year 2007, and that in
its report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 (H. Rept.109-89), the committee
recommended no funds for this purpose, believing that
procurement of F-35A aircraft was premature.
Subsequently, the F-35 aircraft program has experienced
several changes in the EMD and production schedules due to
lagging technology development, design instability, and late
delivery of aircraft. The result has been a rebase-lining of
the program in 2007 and several cost and schedule changes. The
2012 Government Accountability Office analysis of DOD data
indicates that the cumulative number of aircraft projected to
be procured through 2017 has been reduced by 1,226 aircraft, or
77 percent since EMD began in fiscal year 2002. Further, the
committee notes that the most recent F-35 aircraft program DOD
selected acquisition report includes an acquisition program
estimate of $395.7 billion. This most recent estimate has
increased $13.2 billion since June 2010 and $117.2 billion
since March 2007, when the program's estimated cost and
schedule was rebase-lined.
The F-35 program is approximately 20 percent through its
flight test program. While remaining technology, design
stability, and software development issues are of significant
concern to the committee, the Department of Defense has made a
major reduction in the research and development and production
concurrency in the program. As a result, the projected
reduction in the number of F-35 aircraft to be produced through
2017 will reduce post-production modifications that could
otherwise need to be accomplished on a much larger number of
aircraft. The committee supports the most recent actions of the
F-35 Joint Program Office leadership to reduce development and
production concurrency and focus on EMD issues, but remains
concerned about future increases in program acquisition costs,
and expects that the Department of Defense will continue to
take the necessary measures to curtail future increases in the
program's acquisition cost.
Global Hawk Block 30 Aircraft
The budget request contained no funds for Global Hawk Block
30 unmanned aerial intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance support for the combatant commanders.
On June 14, 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provided certification
to Congress that continuation of the Global Hawk Block 30
program was essential to national security, and that there were
no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable
capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost.
Further, the certification indicated that the Global Hawk Block
30 costs $220.0 million per year less than the U-2 to operate
and sustain. Based on this certification, the committee
provided all requested fiscal year 2012 funding for the Global
Hawk Block 30 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), including $323.9
million for 3 additional systems.
In contrast, the fiscal year 2013 budget would terminate
the Global Hawk Block 30 program and cancel the 10 remaining
aircraft previously planned for procurement. In addition, the
Department of the Air Force has stated its intention to place
the current 14 systems in storage, each aircraft having been
procured at a cost of approximately $100.0 million. Additional
information provided by the Air Force indicates that the 4
additional systems currently in production would be placed into
storage upon delivery. The committee notes that the Global Hawk
Block 30 achieved initial operability capability in August,
2011. The committee does not believe there is any precedent for
the Department of Defense (DOD) placing a system this expensive
into storage without being used, and does not support this
proposal.
In addition, the committee does not believe that the
proposal to suspend Global Hawk Block 30 operations is
consistent with the Department's new military strategy. The
committee notes that the Department's new strategy is focused
on operations in the Middle East and Western Pacific in an
anti-access/area-denial environment that places a premium on
long-range, long-duration intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capability. The Global Hawk Block 30
aircraft currently in service are in high demand by combatant
commanders, and are currently flying precisely such missions
for U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S.
Pacific Command. In addition, most missions being flown are at
ranges where the Global Hawk Block 30 is less costly to operate
than the U-2, because of the relatively long mission duration
of the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft. The committee believes
that the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft provide a unique
capability and should be retained and operated through at least
December 31, 2014, in support of current operational
requirements of the combatant commanders. Beyond that date, the
committee believes the Air Force should continue to fund both
the Global Hawk Block 30 and the U-2 if there is sufficient ISR
demand from combatant commanders.
The committee recommends $105.2 million, an increase of
$105.2 million, in Aircraft Procurement Air Force, for
maintaining Global Hawk Block 30 operations. Elsewhere in this
Act, the committee recommends $133.0 million, an increase of
$133.0 million, in title 3, and recommends $22.2 million, an
increase of $22.2 million in title 4, for a total of an
additional $260.4 million to fund Global Hawk Block 30
operations for fiscal year 2013. In addition, the committee
expects the Secretary of the Air Force to fully execute the
fiscal year 2012 Global Hawk Block 30 program, including the
procurement of 3 additional aircraft, in accordance with the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-74).
Inter-Theater Airlift Aircraft
The budget request contains $1.7 billion for C-17 and C-5
inter-theater airlift aircraft programs. The budget request
also contains a legislative proposal from the Department of
Defense (DOD) to lower the inter-theater airlift aircraft
minimum floor from 301 to 275 aircraft.
Air Force officials state that ``Case 3'' of the Mobility
Capability and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16) was the
analytical underpinning for the new mobility force structure
associated with the new 2012 Defense Strategy and that a
strategic airlift fleet of 275 aircraft would support it. Of
note, Case 3 is the least demanding scenario that was modeled
in MCRS-16. The Case 3 results indicated that the Department
would be required to provide 29.1 million-ton-miles per day
(MTM/D). Of note, unlike past studies, the Department of
Defense also levied an additional 5.0 MTM/D on the Civil
Reserve Aircraft Fleet (CRAF) program and increased its
requirement of provided airlift to 25.5 MTM/D. Past studies
have only assumed that CRAF could provide 20.5 MTM/D because of
the number of participants and quantity/type of aircraft in the
commercial program. No significant improvements have occurred
within the CRAF program that would signify that an increase
from 20.5 to 25.5 MTM/D could actually be supported.
Furthermore, the largest provider of commercial airlift to DOD
as a CRAF participant recently declared bankruptcy.
According to the MCRS-16 summary, the study recognized the
reality of long-term U.S. involvement in globally dispersed
operations which may include lengthy commitments to major
campaigns. MCRS-16 realized important fact-of-life changes that
placed new demands on the mobility system since the last
mobility study, MCS-05, completed in 2006. The changes included
a higher level of engagement around the world, increased
reliance on the Reserve Components, increased reliance on
airlift to move equipment and supplies that were once moved
almost exclusively by surface transport, the introduction of
new specialized equipment, the continued growth of Special
Operations Forces, and the establishment of U.S. Africa
Command. In response to these changes, the Department said that
MCRS-16 provided an opportunity to make informed investment
decisions designed to maintain the right mix of strategic and
intra-theater transportation capabilities. All of which remain
valid today, and into the foreseeable future, despite the new
2012 defense strategy.
Officials from the Government Accountability Office noted
in testimony on March 7, 2012, before the Subcommittee on
Seapower and Projection Forces that MCRS-16 did not
sufficiently characterize incurred operational risk, nor did
MCRS-16 adequately articulate capability gaps or inventory
excesses. Additionally, the committee notes that certain
assumptions regarding prepositioned stock locations and inter-
theater airlift aircraft operational metrics, such as aircraft
availability and mission capability, are no longer valid and
that actual aircraft performance metrics are notably less than
those modeled during MCRS-16 scenario execution.
During the time period between fiscal year 2002 and 2011,
there has been a heavy demand on mobility airlift. The C-17 has
over flown its planned program of record by 106 percent, or
103,581 hours, and the C-5 fleet has over flown its planned
program of record by 134 percent, or 151,570 hours. An Air
Force mobility study, completed in September 2010 by the Air
Force Office of Lessons Learned when the Air Force program of
record was 316 inter-theater airlift aircraft, analyzed
Afghanistan mobility operations and found that that ``the Air
Force does not own enough large and outsize airlift to execute
Operation Enduring Freedom surge and sustainment without
substantial utilization of contracted and tendered commercial
carriers. These aircraft, chartered in their entirety by U.S.
Transportation Command at a price tag that sometimes exceeded
$1.0 million per mission, deliver unmatched and irreplaceable
outsize commodity capability to the warfighter.'' Between 2006-
11, the Department of Defense spent $2.2 billion on foreign
contracted strategic airlift.
In its February 2012 Air Force White Paper provided to
Congress outlining the Air Force's fiscal year 2013 force
structure reorganization, the Air Force stated that ``although
the U.S. has removed all combat forces from Iraq and the new
strategic guidance reduces the steady state requirement for
ground forces, we expect Air Force steady state rotational
requirements to remain nearly constant, or perhaps increase,
under the new strategy.'' DOD officials also stated to the
committee during a briefing on February 23, 2012, that there
will need to be further analysis of what the lift requirement,
both inter-theater and intra-theater, will be for the new force
lay-down plan in the Asia-Pacific Area of Responsibility.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command,
to provide to the congressional defense committees an
operational risk assessment for meeting geographical combatant
commander airlift requirements with an organic fleet of less
than 301 inter-theater airlift aircraft.
Intra-Theater Airlift Aircraft
The budget request contained $234.1 million for C-130
airlift aircraft and no funding for C-27J aircraft. The budget
request also includes no funding for the C-130 Avionics
Modernization Program (C-130 AMP) and reduces the intra-theater
aircraft inventory by 65 C-130H and 38 C-27J aircraft.
For the past 6 years, Air Force leadership has vigorously
advocated the need for the C-27J program to meet the Army's
time-sensitive/mission-critical (TS/MC) airlift requirements,
in a cost-effective and efficient manner. On February 27, 2008,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics certified to Congress that ``there is, within the
Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Army
National Guard, or Air National Guard, a capability gap or
shortfall with respect to intra-theater airlift, and validated
requirements exist to fill that gap or shortfall through
procurement of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).'' On the same
date, the Chiefs of Staff for both the Air Force and the Army
sent a letter to the congressional defense committees that
stated ``[we] stand together in support of the JCA. Time-
sensitive/mission-critical resupply is crucial to our success
as warfighters.''
On March 30, 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force testified
to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Defense that ``we
continued C-27J procurement as an investment in overall
[tactical airlift] fleet viability. Efforts to increase direct
support airlift continue, with plans to beddown 38 C-27Js in
the Air National Guard.'' And the 2012 Air Mobility Command
Master Plan, published November 2011, states that ``the C-27J
is intended to provide an efficient means of accomplishing the
direct support role for distributed ground forces . . . lessons
learned from Southwest Asia operations reveal the need for a
smaller than C-130 aircraft. It must provide a responsive,
small-scale airlift capability to better support time
sensitive, mission critical needs of Joint operations, deployed
Special Forces, coalition troops, or host nations. It must also
be able to operate on remote, austere airfields or via airdrop.
The C-27J fulfills these requirements and will be a superb
complement to the C-130 and C-17 fleet capabilities . . . the
C-27J's capabilities are tailored for these future scenarios.''
Despite the Air Force's unwavering support for C-27J to
date, the Air Force decided for fiscal year 2013 that the C-27J
was no longer affordable and provided a business-case analysis
(BCA) in February 2011 to the congressional defense committees
explaining the new Air Force position. In the review of the
BCA, the committee notes that the Air Force had to use many
assumptions for estimated costs in lieu of historical and fact-
based C-27J cost data. Without a sufficient amount of reliable
program execution data for C-27J, life-cycle costs per aircraft
for personnel, operations, maintenance, and depot activities to
support the Air Force position that the C-27J will be more
expensive to own and operate than either the C-130H and C-130J
may be premature. Furthermore, the committee believes that a
prudent, cost-effective basing strategy for 38 C-27J aircraft,
and a comparison of the C-27J manning estimate requirement
document to actual unit personnel today being used to own and
operate the C-27J, may reduce the projected ownership costs of
the C-27J below the Air Force estimate. Such a review may
assist the Air Force in realizing a tax-payer return on
investment by not having to send brand-new C-27J aircraft from
the production line directly into long-term storage.
The committee also believes that a large reduction to the
intra-theater airlift inventory puts at significant risk the
Air Force's ability to meet both title 10 and title 32, United
States Code, intra-theater airlift requirements for both
steady-state and contingency operations. In its February 2012
Air Force White Paper provided to Congress outlining the Air
Force's fiscal year 2013 force structure reorganization, the
Air Force stated that ``although the U.S. has removed all
combat forces from Iraq and the new strategic guidance reduces
the steady state requirement for ground forces, we expect Air
Force steady state rotational requirements to remain nearly
constant, or perhaps increase, under the new strategy.'' The
Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated during a briefing to the
committee on January 25, 2012, that his greatest concern with
the new defense strategy was not having the capacity in the
mobility and combat air forces to support and execute the new
strategy. Department of Defense officials also stated to the
committee during a briefing on February 23, 2012, that there
will need to be further analysis of what the lift requirement,
both inter-theater and intra-theater, will be for the new force
lay-down plan in the Asia-Pacific Area of Responsibility.
Compounding the issue is that fulfillment of the Army's direct-
support/mission-critical airlift requirements could be placed
at risk given the Army's plans to divest all of its C-23 Sherpa
inventory over the Future Years Defense Program and the aged
condition of its rotary-wing fleet of CH-47 rotorcraft.
Specifically pertaining to execution of the C-130J aircraft
acquisition program, the committee is discouraged that the
Secretary of the Air Force continues to foster procurement
instability by annually altering forecasted procurement
quantity rates that are significantly different from the
preceding year's budget procurement quantity forecasted in
future years. A continuous strategy of inconsistent quantity
adherence and lack of advance procurement funding preceding the
year of full funding for the aircraft induces: program
instability; inefficient use of taxpayer's dollars; second and
third order effects on subcontractor stability; touch-labor
workforce perturbations; and, adverse aircraft pricing
fluctuations. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air
Force to stabilize C-130J procurement and properly budget for
advance procurement funding in future budget submissions.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes provisions
that would: preclude divestment of any C-27J aircraft during
fiscal year 2013; require the Secretary of the Air Force, after
fiscal year 2013, to wait 180 days after submitting the report
required by section 112 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) and the Director,
Congressional Budget Office submits a detailed life-cycle cost
analysis for C-27J, C-130H and C-130J aircraft, before
retirement, divestment or transfer of any C-27J aircraft;
require the Secretary of the Air Force to continue the C-130
Avionics Modernization Program for the C-130 until the
Institute for Defense Analyses conducts a business-case
analysis; require an annual report from the Secretary of the
Army regarding TS/MC airlift requirements fulfillment by the
Air Force; and, require the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide the congressional defense committees a report by March
1, 2013, that explains the rationale and planning for any
proposed retirement, divestment, or transfer of any C-130
aircraft in fiscal years 2014 through 2017.
Long Range Stand-Off
The committee notes persistent confusion about whether the
next generation bomber and next-generation cruise missile
(otherwise known as the ``Long Range Stand-Off weapon'') will
be nuclear capable in order to preserve the nuclear triad into
the future. The committee addresses the next generation bomber
in another section of this bill.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Administrator of Nuclear Security, to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 4, 2013, concurrent with the delivery of the fiscal
year 2014 budget submission, on the Department's plans,
including costs and program impact, to ensure that the long-
range strike bomber possesses a nuclear warhead equipped air-
launched cruise missile capability, and that such system is
available to be deployed, upon declaration of initial operating
capability of the long-range strike bomber.
Long-Range Strike Bomber Programs
The budget request contained $983.1 million for B-1, B-2,
B-52 and the new long-range strike bomber programs.
The budget request is a decrease of $236.7 million below
the amount the Air Force had planned for the fiscal year 2013
budget in the Future Years Defense Program. The committee notes
significant changes to critical bomber modernization programs,
such as B-52 Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT),
B-52 Strategic Radar Replacement, and B-52 and B-2 Extremely
High Frequency communication upgrades that the Air Force will
no longer undertake due to affordability issues. The committee
believes that as a result of these cancellations, the ability
of the Air Force to meet combatant commander warfighting
requirements and maintain reasonable operations and sustainment
costs for the legacy bomber fleet is at risk.
The committee is disappointed that despite the successful
completion of all engineering, manufacturing, and development
(EMD) efforts on the B-52 CONECT program, the Secretary of the
Air Force has decided to forfeit the taxpayer's investment in
EMD by not continuing the procurement and fielding phases of
the program. The committee believes that if the B-52 CONECT
procurement program is continued, modernization of the B-52
fleet with B-52 CONECT would increase B-52's combat capability,
flexibility, and maintainability; reduce in-flight crew
workload; and provide the warfighter with more precise, timely,
and effective close-air support.
The committee is also discouraged that the Air Force is
unable to clearly articulate when the new long-range strike
bomber will become certified for nuclear operations after
attaining initial operating capability status. The committee
does not believe that test and evaluation master plan
affordability should be the limiting factor for certification.
However, the committee supports the Air Force's plan to
maintain the legacy bomber fleet inventory at current fiscal
year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 combat-coded levels for each of
the bomber fleets.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would support the Air Force's plan to maintain the legacy
bomber fleet inventory at current levels. In addition,
elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that
would require the Air Force to ensure the new long-range strike
bomber is capable of nuclear operations upon declaration of the
initial operating capability (IOC) status and certified for
nuclear capable operations within two years after declaration
of the IOC status. Furthermore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of the Air Force to obligate fiscal year 2012
appropriations procurement funds for the B-52 CONECT program,
and directs the Secretary to conduct a risk-based, mission-
effectiveness analysis regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of not continuing the B-52 CONECT procurement
program and maintaining the B-52 fleet of aircraft in the
current configuration and to provide a report on the findings
to the congressional defense committees by February 5, 2013.
The report should include an evaluation of various procurement
quantities and pricing options that would enhance the
affordability of the B-52 CONECT procurement program in order
to garner a sufficient return on investment resulting from the
EMD efforts to date.
The committee recommends $983.1 million, the full amount
requested, for B-1, B-2, B-52 and the new long-range strike
bomber programs.
Reaper Unmanned Aircraft System
The budget request contained $553.5 million for 24 Reaper
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and also contained $72.3
million for additional spares in Aircraft Procurement Air
Force.
Beginning in fiscal year 2011, the Air Force projected an
annual procurement of 48 Reaper UAS each year through the
completion of procurement in 2016. The committee understands
that, as a consequence, this schedule would require the Reaper
UAS contractor to produce 48 aircraft for 2 fiscal years,
increase its production capacity to meet the higher production
rate, and would then request funds for 24 aircraft in the third
and subsequent years, through completion of procurement, in
approximately 2020. The committee understands that procurement
of an additional 12 aircraft in fiscal year 2013 would reduce
the unit cost of each vehicle by approximately $1.0 million.
The committee recommends $712.4 million, an increase of
$158.9 million, in Aircraft Procurement Air Force, for 12
additional Reaper UAS. The committee also recommends $93.9
million, an increase of $21.6 million, in Aircraft Procurement
Air Force, for initial spares to support the procurement of 36
Reaper UAS.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $599.2
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $599.2 million, no change to the
budget request, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
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 2013 contained $5.5
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $5.5 billion, an increase of $15.0
million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $16.7
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $16.7 billion, no change to the
budget request, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division
D of this Act.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $4.2
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends
authorization of $4.6 billion, an increase of $436.2 million,
for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Aircraft Survivability Equipment
The committee is aware that in 2009, in an effort to
improve rotor aircraft safety and survivability, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
issued an Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) Acquisition
Directive Memorandum directing the Department of the Navy, as
the lead military service for the program, to develop a modular
and open operating system to enable upgrades and platform
integration, and thus promote a cost-effective common ASE
system and eliminate the need for similar, duplicative systems
for each of the military service's rotorcraft inventory.
The committee is encouraged that the military services are
coordinating on ASE efforts, but is concerned that duplicate
efforts may still exist. Therefore, the committee directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to conduct a review of ongoing and planned rotorcraft
threat warning and countermeasure programs, and to brief the
congressional defense committees by September 30, 2012, on
specific steps the Department will take to ensure that aircraft
survivability equipment meets current military service
requirements.
Aviation Foreign Internal Defense and Non-Standard Aviation Program
The budget request contained $97.7 million for the Non-
Standard Aviation program, and also contained $7.5 million for
the U-28 program.
The committee supports and approves of the recent changes
to the U.S. Special Operations Command Aviation Foreign
Internal Defense (AvFID) program as directed by reporting
requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). The committee supports
combining the Non-Standard Aviation (NSAv) light program with
the AvFID program and the resultant efficiencies in training,
maintaining, and supporting of forward deployed combined units.
The committee believes that combining these two programs will
reduce start-up costs, leverage logistical and operational
experiences already gained in the Air Force Special Operations
Active and Reserve Components, and field more rapidly a
persistent and highly capable fixed-wing AvFID program.
Further, the committee is pleased that the overall program
realignment of assets will result in an estimated reduction of
Contractor Logistics Support costs by approximately $53.0
million between fiscal years 2013-17.
The committee encourages the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command and the Commander, Air Force Special
Operations Command to continually and comprehensively validate
geographic combatant commander requirements for AvFID and NSAv,
and to prioritize them in a way that will ensure a globally
persistent and effective presence that contributes
comprehensively to security force assistance and national
security objectives. The committee also encourages the
Commander, Air Force Special Operations Command to: refine
global site selection to optimize operational and logistical
support; continue efforts to reduce Contracted Logistics
Support across the Future Years Defense Program; and leverage
U.S. Air Force Reserve assets to further reduce sustainment
costs.
To facilitate the implementation of the proposed changes to
the AvFID and NSAv programs the committee supports the proposed
modifications required to convert four Non-Standard Aviation
(NSAv) light PC-12 aircraft into U-28 aircraft and adjusts
authorized funding levels to permit these changes.
The committee recommends $34.9 million, a decrease of $62.8
million, for the AvFID program, and $70.3 million, an increase
of $62.8 million, for the U-28 program.
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund
The budget request contained $99.5 million for the Joint
Urgent Operational Needs (JUON) Fund; $100.0 million for the
Overseas Contingency Operations JUON Fund; $158.3 million in PE
63648D8Z for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations; $227.4
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
(JIEDD) Fund; and $1.7 billion for the Overseas Contingency
Operations JIEDD Fund.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military
services have established a number of organizations and
programs to respond to requests from units in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation New Dawn, and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF), units supporting other combatant commands, and from
combatant commanders to rapidly develop and field solutions to
a variety of capabilities, including development and transition
of new technologies to the warfighter; support for Joint
Experimentation Range Complexes; counter-improvised explosive
detection and destroy; and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance sensors and systems. The committee notes each of
these programs requests amounts for unspecified purposes for
hundreds of projects in anticipation of requests from OEF
units, other units in other combatant commands, and combatant
commanders. The committee believes that this request lacks
proper justification and is duplicative with other requests for
rapid acquisition capabilities to address urgent operational
needs.
At the request of Congress, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has completed a number of reviews of Department of
Defense (DOD) rapid acquisition, quick reaction, and counter-
improvised explosive device (C-IED) programs. In each review,
GAO concluded that the Department does not have a comprehensive
policy or process to oversee the variety of programs and
projects established to respond to OEF requested capabilities.
The committee notes that GAO has identified 31 entities and
over one thousand projects within the Department of Defense,
the military services, and U.S. Special Operations Command to
respond to urgent operational needs from combat theaters of
operation and each have separate budgets used to develop equip
and field solutions to the warfighter. The committee believes
that significant efficiencies could be achieved by
consolidating these accounts and instituting processes and
systems that provide visibility of all projects being
considered for funding.
Section 804 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive
review of the Department's urgent operational needs and rapid
acquisition processes and report the findings to the
congressional defense committees by January 2012. The committee
notes this review is still ongoing and is scheduled to be
complete by August 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 such as the
JUON Fund. The committee also expects the Secretary of Defense
to establish policies and processes to provide comprehensive
oversight of these programs as part of this required review.
Further, the committee recommends consolidating programs
established to rapidly develop and field solutions for units in
combat and combatant commanders.
The committee appreciates that the Department must find
ways to rapidly fund urgent needs to address near-term and
high-risk scenarios. As such, Congress provided the Department
with Rapid Acquisition Authority 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 Public Law 111-383
which provides the Secretary of Defense $200.0 million in
authority, per fiscal year, to waive any statute hindering
quick response to immediate warfighter capability requirements
in response to combat fatalities. The committee understands the
Department has rarely used this authority.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $99.5
million, for the JUON Fund. In title XV of this Act, the
committee recommends $50.0 million, a decrease of $50.0
million, for the JUON fund within the budget request for
Overseas Contingency Operations. In title II in this Act, the
committee recommends $158.3 million, the full amount requested,
in PE 63648D8Z for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations.
In title XV of this Act, the committee recommends $1.9 billion,
the full amount requested, within the budget request for
Overseas Contingency Operations for the JIEDD Fund.
Metrics for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities
for Manned and Unmanned Medium Altitude Systems
The committee notes the significant differences among and
within the military services for measuring, evaluating, and
describing the level of capability provided by their manned and
unmanned system of intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) for medium altitude systems. The metric
often used is combat air patrol (CAP), but definitions vary for
CAP for different aircraft types, even within the military
services, and provides limited utility as a metric in
describing system capability, utility, or relative
capabilities. The committee also notes that the Army has made
significant progress in defining its ISR requirements in terms
of capability to satisfy its mission by developing the
Integrated Sensor Coverage Area construct.
The committee understands the Joint Staff intends to
complete a strategic portfolio review of the Department of
Defense's current and programmed medium altitude ISR systems
portfolio. In completing this strategic portfolio review, the
committee recommends the Director of the Joint Staff develop
and use a common set of metrics that will provide a common
measurement of manned and unmanned system capabilities for each
medium altitude platform and differing sensor configurations
within platforms, within each of the ISR primary mission areas
to include, but not limited to, full motion electro-optical-
infrared (EO-IR) video, EO-IR imagery, wide area surveillance,
synthetic aperture radar, signals intelligence, hyper-spectral
imagery, moving target indicator, dismounted moving target
indicator, and foliage penetration.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
The committee is concerned that the budget request results
in a reduction of 3 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
batteries and 66 interceptors across the Future Years Defense
Program when compared to the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
The committee is also concerned that their decrease in
interceptors and the current production rate, which is below
capacity, creates a gap between the time when six fully
operational THAAD batteries are delivered to the U.S. Army, and
when those batteries will be fully outfitted with interceptors.
The committee recommends the full amount requested for
procurement of THAAD interceptors. The committee also
recommends an increase of $127.0 million, to increase the
production in fiscal year 2013 by 12 interceptors to a total of
48 interceptors. The committee also urges the Missile Defense
Agency to realign interceptor production to better match the
availability of THAAD batteries in its future budget
submissions.
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--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army CH-47 Helicopters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army 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 CH-47F helicopters.
Section 112--Reports on Airlift Requirements of the Army
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
October 31, 2012, and annually thereafter until 2017, a report
that shall include the following information from the preceding
fiscal year: (1) the total number of Time-Sensitive/Mission-
Critical cargo airlift movements that were required for
training, steady-state and contingency operations; (2) the
total number of Time-Sensitive/Mission-Critical cargo airlift
sorties executed for training, steady-state, and contingency
operations; and (3) the total number of Time-Sensitive/Mission-
Critical cargo sorties executed for training, steady-state, and
contingency operations, aggregated by Department of the Army
aircraft, Department of the Air Force aircraft, and contractor-
provided airlift aircraft. This section would also require the
Secretary of the Army to provide for each Time-Sensitive/
Mission-Critical cargo airlift sortie not executed by
Department of the Air Force aircraft, the reason(s) Department
of the Air Force aircraft were not utilized to support the
mission.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Retirement of Nuclear-Powered Ballistic Submarines
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
maintain a minimum of 12 ballistic missile submarines in the
fleet.
Section 122--Extension of Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier Construction
Authority
This section would amend the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by extending the
incremental funding of the Ford class aircraft carriers (CVN-79
and CVN-80) from a 5-year period to a 6-year period.
Section 123--Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority for F/A-18E,
F/A-18F, and EA-18G Aircraft
This section would amend section 128 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as amended by the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-238), to
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to add a fifth production
year to the multiyear procurement contract for F/A-18E, F/A-
18F, and EA-18G aircraft.
Section 124--Multiyear Procurement Authority for V-22 Joint Aircraft
Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal year
2013 program year, for the procurement of V-22 aircraft for the
Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, and
U.S. Special Operations Command. This section would also
require that the V-22 multiyear contract provide that any
obligation of the United States to make a payment under the
contract for a fiscal year, after fiscal year 2013, be subject
to the availability of appropriations for that purpose for such
later fiscal year.
Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh Burke Class
Destroyers and Associated Systems
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for up to 10
Arleigh Burke class destroyers (DDG-51). The budget request
included $3.0 billion for the procurement of two Arleigh Burke
class destroyers. For many years, this class of ships was
efficiently procured through multiyear procurement contracts,
until the restart of production. The DDG-51 Flight IIA
possesses a stable design and the committee supports the budget
request to continue DDG-51 production through the Future Years
Defense Program.
Section 126--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia-Class
Submarine Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of up to 10
Virginia class submarines beginning in fiscal year 2014. This
section would also authorize the Secretary of the Navy to fund
this contract through the use of incremental funding.
Section 127--Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. Abraham
Lincoln
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a contract for the refueling and complex overhaul of
the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). This section would also set a
limit of $1.6 billion for this purpose in fiscal year 2013,
since it is the first year of 2-year incremental funding.
Section 128--Report on Littoral Combat Ship Designs
This section would require a report on the two Littoral
Combat Ship designs for comparative cost and effectiveness.
Section 129--Comptroller General Reviews of Littoral Combat Ship
Program
The section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a review of the Littoral Combat Ship
program's quality, and a review of the U.S. Navy's operational
and sustainment support strategy for the program.
Section 130--Sense of Congress on Importance of Engineering in Early
Stages of Shipbuilding
This section would state the sense of Congress encouraging
the Navy to prioritize early engineering in large ship
construction.
Section 131--Sense of Congress on Marine Corps Amphibious Lift and
Presence Requirements
This section would provide the sense of Congress on
Amphibious Lift and Presence Requirements.
SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
Section 141--Retirement of B-1 Bomber Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to maintain 36 combat-coded B-1 bomber aircraft beyond fiscal
year 2013.
Section 142--Maintenance of Strategic Airlift Aircraft
This section would also require the Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command to submit to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2013, a report assessing the
operational risk for meeting the geographical combatant
commanders' airlift requirements with a fleet of less than 301
inter-theater airlift aircraft.
Section 143--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment or
Retirement of C-27J Aircraft
This section would prevent the Secretary of the Air Force
from divesting or retiring C-27J aircraft from the Air Force's
inventory after fiscal year 2013 until 180 days after the date
on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits the report
required by section 112 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), and the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) submits to the
congressional defense committees a life-cycle cost analysis of
C-27J aircraft, C-130H aircraft, and C-130J aircraft. This
section would also require the Director to conduct the
analysis, which would take into account all upgrades and
modifications required to sustain the aircraft through a 40-
year service-life. The Director would also provide an
assessment of the most cost-effective and mission-effective
options for which C-27J aircraft could be affordably fielded by
the Air National Guard with regard to the number of basing
locations, the number of authorized personnel associated with a
unit's manning document, and the maintenance and sustainment
strategy. The cost-analysis would also outline any limiting
factors regarding the assessment of the C-27J aircraft cost
data as it relates to deriving cost ground rules and
assumptions, and actual data derived from costs incurred for
currently fielded aircraft. The Department of Defense would
also be required to provide to the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office all requested and all original
source documentation needed to conduct the life-cycle cost
analyses in a prompt and timely manner.
Section 144--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Termination of C-
130 Avionics Modernization Program
This section would prevent the Secretary of the Air Force
from terminating the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
until 180 days after the Institute for Defense Analyses submits
to the congressional defense committees a cost-benefit analysis
of modernizing the legacy C-130 airlift fleet with C-130 AMP as
compared to only modernizing the legacy C-130 airlift fleet
with a reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning
systems. The cost-benefit analysis would take into account the
impact of lifecycle costs for both C-130s upgraded with C-130
AMP and C-130s not upgraded with C-130 AMP, and for legacy C-
130 aircraft that are not upgraded with C-130 AMP, the impacts
to future sustainment and maintenance costs associated with
certain avionics and mission systems upgrades that may be
required in the future for legacy C-130 aircraft to remain
relevant and mission effective throughout the full service-life
of the aircraft.
Section 145--Review of C-130 Force Structure
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to conduct a review of current and future plans for C-130 force
structure and provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than the date upon which the President
submits the fiscal year 2014 budget request to Congress. This
section would also require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a sufficiency review of the
Secretary's report and provide the results of that review to
the congressional defense committees no later than 60 days
after submission of the Secretary's report to the congressional
defense committees.
Section 146--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle Program
This section would express the sense of Congress that
assured access to space remains critical to national security,
and that the United States Air Force plan, starting in fiscal
year 2013, to commit to an annual production rate of launch
vehicle booster cores should maintain mission assurance,
stabilize the industrial base, reduce costs, and provide
opportunities for competition.
The committee notes that the cost of space launch has
increased significantly and it believes that economic order
quantity purchases and opportunities for competition will help
secure the most cost-effective high mission assurance space
launch capability for the taxpayer. The committee notes that
the Air Force's detailed acquisition strategy will not be
finalized at the time of publication. The committee expects
this acquisition strategy will adequately balance mission
assurance, cost savings, and opportunities for certified new
entrants to compete.
This section would limit 10 percent of the obligation or
expenditure of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2013 for the evolved expendable
launch vehicle program until the Secretary of the Air Force
submits a report to the appropriate congressional committees
describing the details of the acquisition approach. The report
should include the anticipated savings, the planned number of
launch vehicle booster cores to be procured, the number of
years that the contract will last, an assessment of when new
entrants will be certified to compete for evolved expendable
launch vehicle class launches, the projected launch manifest
with possible opportunities for new entrants to compete, and
any other relevant analysis used to inform the acquisition
strategy. The Secretary of the Air Force should also provide
written certification that the strategy maintains assured
access to space, achieves substantial cost savings, and
provides opportunities for competition.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the final acquisition plan and submit
its findings to the appropriate congressional committees,
within 30 days of the Air Force submittal. The findings may be
communicated to these committees in the form of a briefing.
In this section, the appropriate congressional committees
are defined as the congressional defense committees, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Section 147--Procurement of Space-Based Infrared Systems
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to enter into a fixed price contract to procure two Space Based
Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites, authorize incremental
funding of the two SBIRS satellites over a period not to exceed
6 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 SBIRS satellites.
The Air Force proposes to procure two SBIRS satellites over
6 years using advanced appropriations authority as part of its
Efficient Space Procurement (ESP), formerly Evolutionary
Acquisition for Space Efficiency, 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 ESP, 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. Therefore, the committee recommends
incremental funding authority over a period not to exceed 6
years for the procurement of the two SBIRS satellites.
The committee expects the Air Force to realize substantial
savings from the ESP 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 spacecraft
modernization initiative, where research and development
activities are competitively awarded and new technologies are
matured for insertion into future blocks of SBIRS satellites or
other space-based infrared sensors. Further, the committee
believes that the ESP approach must be viewed as a longer-term
strategy for space acquisition to fully realize the benefits of
the spacecraft modernization initiative and to provide longer-
term stability in the industrial base.
The committee discourages the use of advanced
appropriations in future budget requests for space programs.
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Section 151--Requirement To Set F-35 Aircraft Initial Operational
Capability Dates
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to establish the initial operational capability date for the F-
35A aircraft and submit a report on the details of such initial
operational capability to the congressional defense committees
not later than December 31, 2012. This section would also
require the Secretary of the Navy to establish initial
operational capability dates for the F-35B and F-35C aircraft
and submit a report on the details of such initial operational
capabilities for both variants not later than December 31,
2012.
Section 152--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of RQ-4
Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This section would limit the use of funds to retire Global
Hawk Block 30 Unmanned Aircraft Systems and require the
Secretary of the Air Force to take all actions necessary to
maintain RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk operational capability
through December 31, 2014.
Section 153--Common Data Link for Manned and Unmanned Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems
This section would amend section 141 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), as amended by section 143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), to
require that in carrying out a solicitation for a common data
link (CDL), the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that such
solicitation complies with the most recently issued CDL
specification standard of the Department of Defense, and does
not include any proprietary or undocumented interface or
waveform as a requirement or evaluation criterion of such
solicitation.
The committee is aware that the Department continues to
implement a standard specification for CDL for manned and
unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
systems. In his March 29, 2012, confirmation hearing before the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Acting Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
reiterated the Department's advocacy for open competition in
system procurements. The Acting Under Secretary also noted that
an assessment was underway to examine CDL procurements over the
next 2 years to find ways to improve competition, increase
qualified vendors, eliminate the use of proprietary interfaces,
and promote open standards, interfaces, and interoperability
between vendor products. The committee supports the goals of
this assessment, and encourages the Department to implement
this policy as expeditiously as possible.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $69.4 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation.
The committee recommends $70.4 billion, an increase of
$979.5 million to the budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
research, development, test, and evaluation program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $8.9 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee
recommends $8.5 billion, a decrease of $472.1 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Acute Lung Injury Medical Research
The committee is aware that acute lung injury and acute
respiratory distress are significant and growing challenges for
combat casualty care caused in large part by the increasing
survival rate of combatants surviving the initial blasts from
improvised explosive devices. Existing technology such as
mechanical ventilators and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
are too complicated for battlefield use. The committee is aware
that an artificial lung replacement technology, known as an
extracorporeal lung support has been demonstrated as an
effective, less expensive, and safer alternative. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to explore the possibility
of developing alternative lung support devices rugged,
portable, and minimally invasive enough for use in a
battlefield environment.
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle
The budget request contained $74.1 million in PE 23735A for
the Combat Vehicle Improvement Program to continue the Armored
Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program.
The House of Representatives continues to support the AMPV
program and notes that in the conference report (H. Rept. 112-
329) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees provided numerous options for
consideration by the Army to accelerate the program. The
committee is disappointed that the Army has elected not to
accelerate the program.
The committee understands that the budget request would
slip low-rate initial procurement of the AMPV by an additional
year to fiscal year 2017. The committee believes that the
acceleration of the AMPV program, which would use tracked and/
or wheeled variants of systems already fielded, is not a high-
risk endeavor and could also serve to partially mitigate the
proposed 3-year break in production of the combat vehicle
production base. In addition, the committee is aware that
existing manufacturers in the combat vehicle production base
have already produced working prototypes of the AMPV.
Furthermore, the committee recognizes that the AMPV has many of
the attributes of the successful ``Interim Armored Vehicle''
competitive acquisition, which was fielded 2 years after it was
first announced by the Chief of Staff of the Army. The
committee encourages the Army to consider modifying its current
acquisition strategy and explore the feasibility of beginning
low-rate initial procurement of the AMPV in calendar year 2015.
The committee recommends $74.1 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 23735A for the AMPV program.
Autonomous Sustainment Cargo Container
The committee recognizes the importance of safely moving
containerized supplies from ship-to-shore during contingency
operations. The committee has encouraged the development of new
robotic concepts for this logistics operation and, in previous
years, has supported investments in field-test data for an
Autonomous Sustainment Cargo Container (ASCC).
The committee understands, however, that the Army has
stated that it does not have a capability gap in its ability to
move containerized cargo from ship to shore that the ASCC would
address. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to further assess incorporating the ASCC into the Army's
current and near-future logistics operations at the off-shore
distances in accordance with Army doctrine (including future
sea basing). At a minimum, this analysis should review:
(1) The military utility of using an autonomous cargo
container across a range of military operations and in
various environments including adverse weather/terrain,
hostile asymmetrical warfare, and Humanitarian
Assistance/Disaster Relief operations;
(2) How ASCC's capabilities would be incorporated
into the Army's logistics operations, from point of
supply through delivery to point of need;
(3) The cost estimates to procure, operate, and
sustain ASCC in comparison to the lifecycle costs of
current manned capabilities; and
(4) If applicable, additional operational and
logistics impacts to the Army of incorporating ASCC
into its processes.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to submit a report on the Army's findings to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Body Armor Enhancements and Personnel Protection Equipment for Female
Soldiers
The budget request contained $32.0 million in PE 63827A for
soldier systems-advanced development. Of this amount, $15.0
million was requested for the development of improved soldier
personnel protective equipment efforts. The budget request also
contained $96.4 million in PE 64601A for infantry support
weapons. Of this amount, $11.9 million was requested for the
development and testing of prototypes for improved personnel
protective equipment.
Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of
Defense to establish separate research and development program
elements for body armor. The committee notes that while science
and technology (S&T) funds and projects for body armor
activities have been reasonably robust, there has been no
significant advanced component development, prototype
development, and system development and demonstration (RDT&E)
budget activities from which successful S&T projects could be
transitioned. The committee is encouraged by the budget request
for fiscal year 2013. The committee expects these RDT&E
programs to include: female body armor to ensure the warfighter
is equipped with the most current individual protection gear;
develop ways to reduce weight with current technologies; and
increased investment in promising technologies that would
eventually achieve reduced weight and increased protection
together, as well as maximize flexibility and modularity. The
committee also notes that the tradeoff between protection
capabilities and weight is a major cost driver in body armor
procurements and that this has become a major source of
contention related to the measures of protection body armor
must provide. The committee further notes available technology
has not been able to keep the system within the user's desired
weight without sacrificing performance. The committee expects
the Secretary of the Army to adequately resource these RDT&E
efforts in order to improve performance and reduce the weight
of systems.
The committee is also aware of concerns expressed by female
members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation
New Dawn (OND) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that the
current interceptor body armor system's design may not be as
ergonomically effective for female soldiers. The committee
notes that the current counter-insurgency and dismounted
operations in support of OND and OEF place female service
members in direct combat action with the enemy. The committee
understands the U.S. Army is currently pursuing several S&T and
RDT&E programs to improve upon organizational clothing and
individual equipment (OCIE) for soldiers to include programs
specifically focused on female soldiers. The committee commends
the Army for recognizing this issue and encourages the
acceleration of these efforts to help determine the most
effective OCIE to include body armor and associated components,
for military service members. The committee also encourages the
Army to continue to improve upon the partnerships and
coordination of efforts between the S&T and acquisition OCIE
communities in order to help streamline the transition of
technologies into a readily available solution that could be
used in the field by the warfighter.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct
an assessment as to whether there is an operational need to
tailor the interceptor body armor systems fielded to female
service members specifically for the physical requirements of
women. This assessment should include a comprehensive market
survey of commercial body armor system designs specifically
tailored for female body types. The committee further directs
the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act on the results of the assessment,
as well as to provide an update on all other currently funded
programs addressing personnel protection equipment for female
soldiers.
The committee recommends $32.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63827A for soldier systems-advanced
development, and $96.4 million, the full amount requested, in
PE 64601A for infantry weapons program project for development
and testing of prototypes for improved personnel protective
equipment.
Cellular Networking to the Tactical Edge
The committee recognizes the Department of Defense has
successfully deployed a secure third-generation (3G) cellular
network in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to provide
commanders with enhanced situational awareness and intelligence
capabilities as part of its Last Tactical Mile program. By
enabling seamless real-time communication between troops in the
field and in-theater, this capability has increased operational
effectiveness by generating actionable intelligence while
enhancing unit mobility.
The committee commends the Army for its effort to deploy a
mobile, secure cellular network to facilitate collection of
multi-modal biometrics and identity information. Further, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to incorporate
the lessons learned from the Last Tactical Mile program and
consider wider application of these capabilities as it
continues to improve the quality and security of its
communications systems.
Efforts to Improve the Sustainment of Body Armor
The committee notes that the domestic body armor industrial
base has expanded significantly since 2003 after procurement
objectives were increased significantly to outfit all U.S.
Armed Forces and Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel
in the U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility. The
committee notes that the total body armor program evolved from
a $40.0 million program in 1999, to over $6.0 billion through
2012. This represents a significant investment by the military
services for individual personnel protection, and the committee
recognizes the importance of this program.
Current overseas contingency operations have demonstrated
that body armor has become a critical item on the battlefield.
Therefore, maintaining a reliable and cost-effective body armor
industrial capability sufficient to meet strategic objectives
should continue to be an important consideration when
developing current and future acquisition strategies for all
body armor components. Currently, the industrial base is
approaching an inflection point due to uncertainty of future
demand and associated procurement of body armor. The rate of
procurements has dramatically slowed. The committee notes that
industry has been willing to absorb the cost of non-utilized
and underutilized manufacturing capacity in the hope that DOD
contracts will continue; however, this cannot be sustained
indefinitely. The potential dynamic nature of current and
future threats has increased the challenge to forecast
requirements and inform industry in advance.
The committee notes that the military services are
resourcing ongoing projects and initiatives to understand and
improve the lifespan of soft body armor components. The
committee understands that current efforts are examining
environmental effects, ballistic fiber accelerated aging, and
fiber/fabric surface treatment during the weaving process. The
committee notes that there is also research into three-
dimensional weaving technology, and that modeling and
simulation on soft armor architecture is also being
investigated for more durable materials. The committee supports
these initiatives.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act that provides an assessment of the long-term
sustainment requirements for the body armor industrial base in
the United States, to include supply chains for hard and soft
body armor. The briefing should also include an assessment of
body armor and related research, development, and acquisition
objectives, priorities, and funding profiles for hard and soft
body armor components in the following areas: (1) advances in
the level of protection; (2) weight reduction; (3)
manufacturing productivity and capability; and (4) efforts and
new technologies that could currently be used to extend the
lifespan of hard and soft body armor components.
Ground Robotic Vehicle Development
The committee is aware that the first generation of robotic
ground vehicles helped to counter the threat of improvised
explosive devices to both mounted and dismounted forces in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom. The committee notes that a key performance requirement
for the next generation of robotic ground vehicles is the
transportation of infantry equipment and supplies, and to
provide the warfighter with increased situational awareness
capability. Ground vehicle robots also have the potential to
improve the speed and accuracy with which supplies are
delivered to warfighters operating in a combat zone. The
committee notes that multiple ground robotic development
efforts are currently funded by the military services and other
Department of Defense agencies and organizations. The committee
notes that many of these efforts could potentially overlap and
currently appear to lack coordination. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Department to maintain a coordinated effort in
advancing ground robotic research, development, and acquisition
in order to improve cost, schedule, and performance of current
and future initiatives.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Program
The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 65450A for
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) research and development.
The committee supports the JAGM program and approves of the
decision to continue the program as outlined in the revised
Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) issued by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
on March 20, 2012. The committee notes that significant prior-
year funding is available to continue the program and
encourages expedited contracting actions to ensure that these
funds can be obligated in fiscal year 2012. While the committee
agrees with the decision in the ADM to explore technical trades
to achieve a more affordable solution, the committee recommends
that the Army retain a requirement for an all-weather, moving
target-capable missile, with an emphasis on missile solutions
capable of being fielded within 3 years of contract award.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by
August 1, 2012, on the revised acquisition plan, anticipated
requirements, and program schedule and funding needs.
The committee recommends $10.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 65450A for JAGM research and development.
M4 Carbine Product Improvement Program
The budget request contained $96.5 million in PE 64601A for
Infantry Support Weapons. Of this amount, $9.6 million was
requested for the Individual Carbine competition and $9.2
million was requested for the M4 carbine product improvement
program (PIP).
The committee notes that U.S. Army officials have informed
the committee that the Army would resource a three-phase
acquisition strategy to review potential upgrades to the M4
carbine. Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) required the Secretary
of the Army to submit to the congressional defense committees a
business case assessment of commercially available upgrade kits
and weapon systems before allowing the next generation
Individual Carbine to enter full-rate production. The committee
is concerned that the budget request does not contain the
necessary resources to conduct the evaluation of commercial-
off-the-shelf upgrade kits despite the Army's stated intent to
do so in phase III of the PIP acquisition strategy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act that
outlines the Army's plan to evaluate commercial-off-the-shelf
upgrade kits to the M4 carbine in the product improvement
program. This report should include the business case
assessment comparing the capabilities and costs of commercial-
off-the-shelf upgrade kits to the enhanced M4/A1 carbine.
The committee recommends $9.6 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64601A for the Individual Carbine competition,
and $9.2 million, the full amount requested, for the M4 PIP
program.
Occupant-Centric Survivability Technology Development Program
The committee understands that the U.S. Army Tank
Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center
(TARDEC) has established the occupant centric survivability
program, with a goal of examining technologies that can
significantly protect vehicle occupant casualties. The
committee supports this effort. The committee understands that
as part of its effort to improve occupant survivability, TARDEC
is reviewing industry-derived integrated solutions, such as
rapid occupant evacuation systems, modular composite armor and
rocket-propelled grenade mitigation, exterior underbody and
interior floor improvised explosive device blast mitigation
solutions, roof-mounted blast seating and restraint systems,
and thermal injury prevention to include fuel containment
systems. The committee notes that the Marine Corps used a
similar and innovative ``kit'' approach that tightly integrated
numerous survivability technologies in an effort to
significantly upgrade the occupant protection of Marine Corps'
Light Armored Vehicles. The committee understands that such an
integrated occupant-centric survivability system is potentially
applicable to a wide-range of existing and future Army and
Marine Corps vehicles and could be installed on current
platforms in the near-term during depot reset, or in theater.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, U.S. Army
Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
January 1, 2013, on the status of evaluating candidate
occupant-centric survivability systems to include: prototyping
and testing activities; the potential for integrating candidate
technologies on existing vehicles, such as the Stryker vehicle,
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicle, and the high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicle;
and the status of coordinating findings with the Marine Corps.
Patriot Product Improvement Program
The budget request contained $110.0 million in PE 67865A
for the Patriot Product Improvement Program.
The committee is concerned that the Army has not yet
presented to Congress a prioritized plan to support the long
term requirements of a modification program for a system that
will be operational through at least 2035. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report
not later than October 31, 2012, that provides a prioritized
modernization plan for the Patriot system which addresses
replacement of obsolete components and subsystems, development
and insertion of technologies that can address evolving
threats, including those technologies developed through the
Medium Extended Altitude Defense System (MEADS), and
introduction of life-cycle costs reduction changes.
The committee notes that a plan to harvest technology from
MEADS was a specific requirement of the report mandated in
section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), which has not yet been
fulfilled. The committee believes such plan should be included
in the fiscal year 2014 budget request and beyond.
The committee recommends $110.0 million, the amount
requested, in PE 67865A for the Patriot Product Improvement
Program.
Pilot Aid for Helicopter Landing and Cargo Handling
The committee is aware of the Army's need to improve
mission safety for helicopter air and ground crews involved in
landing and cargo handling, particularly in limited visibility
conditions. The Army Aviation and Missile Research,
Development, and Engineering Center has already demonstrated
this capability. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have
deployed, on unmanned helicopter systems, technology to
autonomously deliver cargo on unmanned rotorcraft that could be
adapted for use as a cognitive decision aid, freeing pilots to
concentrate on flight safety. The committee recommends that the
Army evaluate the potential contribution of autonomous cargo
delivery technology as a cognitive pilot aid on its manned
rotorcraft, for landing and cargo handling.
Research, Development, and Engineering Command
The committee is aware that the Department of the Army is
assessing the role of the Research, Development, and
Engineering Command (RDECOM) in an ongoing Material Development
and Sustainment study. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, the committee also requested a study by the
Army to examine the potential impact of disestablishing RDECOM.
The committee strongly supports the RDECOM mission to prevent
unnecessary duplication of research and development, while
ensuring integration and coordination of various efforts. The
committee believes that the level of oversight and discipline
that RDECOM brings to the Army acquisition enterprise is vital
to the effective stewardship of the taxpayer's investment, and
necessary to implement a systematized engineering approach as
required by the Weapon Systems and Acquisition Reform Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-23). Therefore, the committee urges the
Army to refrain from any effort to disestablish, relocate, or
devolve any RDECOM functions, including the reassignment of
personnel, until these studies have been completed and
thoroughly reviewed by the committee.
Robotics for Surgical Procedures
The committee notes that emerging robotics applications
have the potential to improve minimally invasive surgery
techniques. The committee supports continued research by the
Army's Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center
(TATRC) into surgical robotics technologies that could lead to
greater remote-surgery capability and surgical capability in
non-sterile environments. The committee further believes that
such robotics applications for forward-deployed and combat
situations, like those used in transluminal endoscopic oral
surgery, reduce the risk of life-threatening internal infection
associated with accidental injury during surgical procedures.
Rotary-Wing Performance Surface
The committee recognizes the need for the development of a
rotary wing performance mission planning tool that improves
aviation safety and survivability. Such a system could provide
mission planners and air crews with the capability to display
specific airframe performance characteristics that take into
account terrain and soil features, and other performance
factors to provide qualitative assessments of flight routes and
landing zones. Such a system could also provide mission
planners and aircrews with the capability to rapidly assess an
area-of-operation for a forecasted time. This type of
capability should be interoperable with existing aviation
mission planning decision making tools and have the potential
to be integrated with technologies facilitating operations in
degraded visual environments.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by February 28,
2013, assessing the current capabilities and capability gaps in
Army Aviation mission planning tools that would provide
aircrews with enroute and landing zone assessments. The report
should also take into consideration available empirical data
derived from aircraft performance attributes, weather and
environmental conditions, and known terrain conditions.
Shadow Unmanned Aerial System Alternative Engine
The committee notes that the Army's Shadow unmanned aerial
system (UAS) has accumulated over 1 million flight hours in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom. The committee understands that a planned upgrade of
the Shadow may enable it to perform longer-range and higher-
altitude missions. The committee also notes that the Shadow's
current engine runs on high-octane gasoline, which creates a
significant logistics burden for the Army. The committee is
also aware that the Army is pursuing an alternative engine to
enhance UAS performance. The committee encourages the Army to
continue development of alternative engine solutions and
encourages the Army to consider high-efficiency, air-breathing
turbine engine technologies. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees within 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act that details the Army's plans to
modernize the Shadow platform's propulsion system.
Smartphone Application Development for the Battlefield
The budget request contained $50.7 million in PE 63008A for
electronic warfare advanced technology.
The committee notes that this program matures technologies
that address the seamless integrated tactical communications
challenge with distributed, secure, mobile, wireless, and self-
organizing communications networks that will operate reliably
in diverse and complex terrains, in all environments. Within
this program element, the committee urges the Army to also
focus research and development efforts on smartphone
applications that support battle command planning and
information interoperability, including those used with
coalition partners.
The committee recommends $50.7 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63008A for electronic warfare advanced
technology.
Turbo Fuel Cell Advanced Technology Development
The budget request contained $69.0 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology. Of this amount, $24.4
million was requested for ground vehicle technology.
The committee believes the integration of mature, advanced
fuel cell technologies into an engine that could effectively
meet military logistic requirements should be adequately
resourced. The committee is encouraged by the work being done
at the Army's Research, Development and Engineering Command-
Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center
(RDECOM-TARDEC), where engineers are developing a turbo fuel
cell engine for the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck,
which is the primary logistics vehicle being used in support of
Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom. The
committee notes that funding at RDECOM-TARDEC has been used to
manufacture tubular air electrodes for stable, high-performance
solid oxide fuel cells. The committee encourages RDECOM-TARDEC
to continue its work in the development of the turbo fuel cell
engine and supports its efforts to increase energy efficiency
utilizing renewable and alternative sources of energy.
The committee recommends $69.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 62601A for combat vehicle and automotive
technology.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $16.9 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee
recommends $17.7 billion, an increase of $835.5 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
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 $113.7 million in PE 61103N
for University Research Initiatives. Of that amount, $19.4
million was requested for the Defense University Research
Instrumentation Program (DURIP).
The committee notes that DURIP grants are awarded
exclusively on Department of Defense (DOD)-relevant projects
that have undergone a rigorous and competitive application
process administered by the Office of Naval Research. This
process identifies the winning proposals as fulfilling vital
and immediate research needs for which investments in
instrumentation and infrastructure are critical.
As the Navy protects its investment in basic research, it
is vital to ensure that researchers have access to state-of-
the-art research instrumentation to carry out transformative
oceanographic research in support of Navy programs.
The committee recommends, $123.7 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 61103N for the DURIP.
Development of Unmanned Systems Weapon, Sensor, and Payload Integration
and Interoperability Capabilities
The committee recognizes that providing unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) to the warfighters has been a high priority
requirement for each of the military services. However, quick
reaction programs for the purpose of fielding UAS on an
expedited basis has frequently resulted in acquisition of UAS
with proprietary software and subsystems, unique to specific
UAS, making it costly to update UAS capabilities.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department
of the Navy are on record citing the importance of the
integration and interoperability of UAS sensors and ordnance.
The Department of the Navy is therefore encouraged to select an
organization within the Department of the Navy best-suited to
conduct a review of its UAS to determine appropriate courses of
action; including consolidation of integration and
interoperability efforts and an investment strategy to achieve
further integration and interoperability of UAS sensors and
various types of ordnance. Further, recommendations for
consolidation of the integration and interoperability efforts
should give site priority to existing scientific research,
development, test, and evaluation centers of excellence with
experience working with the other military services and with
personnel whose intellectual capital and background expertise
is hardware-in-the-loop and system-integration of weapons,
sensors, and payload systems onto various types of manned and
unmanned aircraft systems. Finally, consolidation sites
considered should have real-time modeling and simulation
weapons laboratories and instrumented weapons-open-air ranges,
within military restricted airspace.
The committee recommends that this review be coordinated
with the appropriate Department of the Navy weapon system
development centers, with participation of personnel from UAS
operational units and industry providers of current and planned
UAS sensors and ordnance. The committee also recommends that
the Department of the Navy provide a briefing on the results of
its review to the congressional defense committees, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Electromagnetic Railgun
The budget request included $89.2 million in PE 62114N for
power projection applied research, including funds for the
Navy's electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) Innovative Naval
Prototype (INP).
The committee is aware that the Navy EMRG program has the
potential to provide significant benefits over conventional
guns by utilizing electricity to create launch projectiles at
speeds more than twice of that achievable by conventional guns.
In addition, the elimination of the chemical propellant could
allow for much deeper magazines due to a smaller round and
provides warfighter safety and logistic benefits through the
elimination of a large fraction of the energetic material from
the magazine. The committee believes that such advances will
provide naval vessels with increased strike capability and
longer time on-station, as well as provide necessary
capabilities to operate effectively in anti-access, area denial
environments. The committee is also aware that the
electromagnetic railgun has the potential to be useful in a
land-based defense mode against missile threats. For both land
and sea based options, the committee believes that the Navy
should work toward rapidly deploying this technology as soon as
practicable.
The committee recommends $89.2 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 62114N for power projection applied research.
Marine Corps Early Transition Activities
The committee is aware that the replacement program for
Navy's current enterprise intranet, the Next Generation
Enterprise Network (NGEN), is expected to be one of the most
complex information technology (IT) systems in the Department
of Defense. NGEN is expected to supply a secure IT
infrastructure for the continental United States and select
locations overseas, providing the foundation for a future Naval
Networking Environment. The committee recognizes that such a
complex system poses management and acquisition challenges
unlike those seen by other defense IT systems. Despite these
challenges, the committee is aware that the Marine Corps has
made exceptional strides in executing early transition
activities to better position the Marine Corps to move to NGEN.
The committee applauds the Marine Corps for quickly and
efficiently implementing changes to move from contractor-owned-
and-controlled to Marine-owned-and-operated infrastructure, and
to help implement lessons on behalf of the entire Department of
the Navy.
Naval Use of Non-Lethal Systems
The committee is aware that the Navy has explored the use
of non-lethal systems to protect naval vessels, such as using
laser dazzlers or high-frequency acoustic hailing devices. The
committee has approved previous requests by the Navy to
reprogram funds to support urgent operational needs for non-
lethal systems. The committee also notes that the President's
budget requested $177.1 million for Navy physical security
equipment procurement, which includes acoustic hailing devices
and laser dazzlers. The committee is concerned, though, that
satisfying specific needs through urgent operational needs and
reprogramming of funds does not indicate a systematic or Navy-
wide view of the needs or requirements for non-lethal systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on
the total requirement for non-lethal systems for naval vessels,
as well as a plan to meet this requirement.
Navy Directed Energy Programs
The budget request included $89.2 million in PE 62114N for
power projection applied research, including funds for the
Navy's free electron laser (FEL) Innovative Naval Prototype
(INP).
The committee is aware that the Navy is pursuing applied
research and development of technologies supporting advanced
accelerators with applications to directed energy weapons. This
activity also includes the FEL INP, which, if successful, could
be utilized for shipboard applications as a defensive weapon
against advanced cruise missiles and asymmetric threats. The
committee believes that such advances are necessary for the
Navy to operate effectively in anti-access, area denial
environments.
The committee recommends $89.2 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 62114N for power projection applied research.
Shipbuilding Material Comparison
In a recent article published in ``Inside the Navy'', it
was reported that, ``superstructure cracking in several classes
of surface combatants is being addressed, but in some cases is
proving costly''. The committee is aware that three materials
have been used in the deckhouses of surface combatants: steel,
aluminum, and most recently for the deckhouse of the DDG-1000
Zumwalt class, composite material.
The committee is also aware that there is a cost
differential in both up-front procurement and production and in
lifecycle maintenance cost for these materials. The next
opportunity that the Navy will have to influence a design will
be with Flight III of the DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke destroyers. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees with delivery of the
fiscal year 2014 budget request, comparing the estimated
construction costs for a deckhouse made of each of the three
materials, or even a possible hybrid of two or all three, and
then compares the estimated lifecycle costs for the designed
life of the ship.
Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering
The committee continues to support the Navy's continued
pursuit of open architecture in its shipboard combat and
communications architecture. The committee is also aware that
the Navy has tested alternative network systems that reduce
size, weight, and power requirements over legacy configurations
with the potential to be more affordable as well. The committee
encourages the Navy to continue to pursue these types of
solutions.
Universal Tactical Controller for Unmanned Systems
The committee is concerned by the large number of
proprietary controllers that have been fielded as part of small
unmanned systems, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV),
unattended ground sensors (UGS), and unmanned ground vehicles
(UGV). The committee understands the roles of UAVs, UGVs, and
UGSs have increased significantly since 2002. The committee
notes that the current inventory of unmanned systems, from
Class 1 UAVs to UGVs and UGSs, includes many different types of
systems, each requiring a proprietary controller unique to
those systems. The committee also notes that more than 19,000
systems have been fielded to units across the Department of
Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to determine
the advisability and feasibility of developing a soldier-
wearable, universal controller for the Army and the Marine
Corps that could potentially operate Class 1 UAVs, UGSs, and
UGVs, and to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act on the results of the study.
Unmanned Aircraft Programs for Navy Aircraft Carriers
The budget request contained $142.3 million in PE 64402N
for the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) and $122.5 million in
PE 64404N for the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system.
The committee notes that the limited fielding operational
capability date for the UCLASS has been delayed by two years in
the fiscal year 2013 budget, but that the milestone activities
associated with technology development for UCLASS and the high-
level of concurrency with the UCAS program remain essentially
the same. Furthermore, the reporting and certification
requirements contained in section 213 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) have
not been provided to the congressional defense committees
regarding the UCLASS program. The Secretary of the Navy also
plans to limit competition early in the UCLASS program by down-
selecting to one contractor during the phase of preliminary
design review. Additionally, the committee understands that
more risk-reduction activities that would benefit the
technology development phase of the UCLASS program are possible
within the UCAS program, but that the UCAS program is fiscally
under-resourced to perform such activities.
The committee therefore recommends the transfer of $75.0
million from PE 64404N for UCLASS to PE 64402N for UCAS risk-
reduction activities. Elsewhere in this title, the committee
includes a provision that would assist enhancing competition in
the UCLASS program, but limit obligation of fiscal year 2013
UCLASS funds to 25 percent of the total appropriated until the
requirements of section 213 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) are
provided to the congressional defense committees.
Unmanned Cargo-Carrying-Capable Unmanned Aerial System
The committee notes that the Marine Corps is conducting an
evaluation of a rotorcraft unmanned aerial system (UAS) that is
being used to carry up to 4,500 pounds of cargo to remote sites
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. To date, the Marine
Corps has indicated that the vehicle has flown approximately
250 hours over 192 flights, and carried nearly 600,000 pounds
of cargo, with an operationally ready rate of 94 percent. The
Marine Corps' use of the cargo-carrying-capable unmanned aerial
vehicle has avoided having to resupply remote operating
locations by the use of manned vehicle convoys, at
significantly reduced cost as compared to manned rotorcraft or
manned cargo aircraft; and also avoided exposing manned
rotorcraft and cargo aircraft to enemy ground fire. The
evaluation was originally planned to span 6 months, however,
the Marine Corps plans to extend it another 6 months, through
September 2012.
The committee supports the technical demonstration and
evaluation of unmanned cargo-carrying-capable UAS. However, if
the military services determine that they require cargo-
carrying-capable UAS in their respective force structure, the
committee believes the services should avoid duplication of
their efforts, and encourages them to conduct common
development where possible and maintain competition in
development and procurement. The committee further notes that
section 142 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) prohibits the obligation
or expenditure of procurement funding for this capability until
15 days after the Department has certified that the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council has approved a joint and common
requirement for such a vehicle.
Utilization of Navy Airship for Airborne Test and Evaluation
The committee is aware that the Navy possesses a manned,
lighter-than-air vehicle, designated the MZ-3A, that has been
utilized by several agencies in recent years for airborne
testing of sensors, communications equipment, and other
electronic devices. The committee believes that lighter-than-
air systems like the MZ-3A have the potential to provide low-
cost, persistent airborne platforms for sensor testing.
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not fully
exploited the benefits and availability of the MZ-3A versus
other Navy platforms performing airborne sensor testing and
evaluation programs and may be utilizing higher-cost platforms
instead. The committee believes that the Navy should maintain a
full accounting of its test platforms to ensure that it
maximizes its test and evaluation resources.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy,
in coordination with the Director of the Test Resource
Management Center of the Department of Defense, to conduct an
analysis of the usage of the MZ-3A for test and evaluation
purposes and submit a report on the results of the analysis to
the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act. The analysis should examine
the following:
(1) An analysis of all of the test platforms used in the
past two fiscal years, or planned for use in the upcoming two
fiscal years;
(2) Costs for maintaining these platforms, and any
limitations requiring the use of specific platforms (such as
availability or payload constraints); and
(3) Description of the process for managing the selection
of platforms for system testing and evaluation.
Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
intensify its efforts to integrate Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
(UUVs) more fully into operations where viable and cost
effective. The committee recognizes the tremendous advances
made by the Navy in development of UUVs, but believes that
increased emphasis on UUV programs of record will produce
additional capabilities. As Navy standards and requirements
solidify, external stakeholders will be incentivized to design
and produce more advanced systems reflecting the latest in
technology.
The committee is in agreement with the views of the Chief
of Naval Operations that unmanned vehicles, particularly UUVs,
can complement and augment manned naval systems; increasing
their capability while reducing both risk to Navy personnel and
cost. As an example, the ability of unmanned vehicles to
provide persistent presence could enhance the effectiveness of
surveillance missions in priority locations. The ability of one
operator to control a number of unmanned vehicles could also
expand the coverage potential of these systems without
requiring an increase in personnel. The committee urges that
the Navy's Roadmap for Information Dominance and other
strategic planning documents be reviewed to ensure the
potential contributions of unmanned vehicles, particularly
UUVs, can be realized fully as soon as possible.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $25.4 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee
recommends $25.5 billion, an increase of $85.0 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
research, development, test and evaluation, Air Force program
are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Aerial Networking
The committee is aware of Air Force research and
development efforts to help address significant and complex
problems in aerial internet protocol (IP) networking, to
include ensuring that IP-based networks deliver rapid,
reliable, real-time tactical information. Such efforts are
expected to make it easier for warfighters to dynamically
configure and manage these aerial networks during periods of
operational use. The committee believes the standardization of
this IP-based architecture could provide tangible benefit to
our warfighters.
The committee encourages the Air Force to expedite further
operational testing of this new capability, including the
potential for expanding the automation of the network and its
management, addition of higher-capacity airborne backbone
network resources, and improved use of satellite and other
broadcast network resources which will be assimilated into the
fielded capability. Following this testing, the Air Force is
further encouraged to expand the scale of live testing and
enable testing of different aerial network configurations with
the eventual live flight testing in real-world environments to
expedite the transition of this capability to fielded military
programs.
Aerospace Sensing and Measurement Standards
The committee recognizes the role that standards play in
accelerating the development of new and innovative technologies
and removing barriers to trade, which increases American global
competitiveness and provides technological advantages to the
warfighter. The committee encourages the Department of Defense
(DOD) to create a consortium of existing organizations to
accelerate the development, adoption, and implementation of
standards in sensing and measurement for the aerospace sector
which will advance defense needs. The committee also encourages
DOD to enter into partnerships with other federal agencies
where such standards would be mutually beneficial.
Enhanced Weather Data Support
The committee is aware that advanced weather forecasts
using Tropospheric Airborne Meteorological Data Reporting
(TAMDAR) systems have been used by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the U.S. Weather Service, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for over seven years.
The committee is also aware that advanced forecasting employing
TAMDAR has the potential to enhance U.S. and allied
meteorological forecasting systems, thus providing improved
reliability and situational awareness. The committee encourages
the Department of Defense to explore the possibility of
utilizing TAMDAR in an operational context to determine its
utility for defense missions.
Global Positioning System
Since its inception in the 1970s, the space-based
architecture of the global positioning system (GPS) has
remained generally the same. From the days of the early Block I
satellites to the GPS III satellites under development today,
the GPS signal from space has been provided by a dedicated
constellation of 24 to 31 satellites in medium earth orbit. The
committee believes that the evolution of satellite and user
equipment technology combined with today's constrained budget
environment make this the right time to look at alternative
architectures for the future global positioning system.
The committee directs the Commander of the Space and
Missile System Center, U.S. Air Force, to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2012, on
lower-cost solutions for providing GPS capability following the
procurement of the GPS III satellites. The report should
identify the system capability, possible implementation
approach(es), technical and programmatic risks, and the
estimated costs of any solution(s) it recommends.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the report provided by the Commander of
the Space and Missile System Center to the congressional
defense committees, and to provide its recommendations to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date
the report is received.
Hypervelocity Ground Testing With Full-Scale Vehicles
The budget request included $232.6 million in Program
Element (PE) 62203F for aerospace propulsion research and
development activities, including hypervelocity ground testing
activities with full-scale vehicles.
The committee supports maintaining the capability to
conduct hypervelocity ground testing with full-scale air
vehicles. The committee is aware that the Air Force maintains a
number of hypervelocity wind tunnels that it shares with the
other military departments, as well as civilian agencies like
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The
committee is also aware that as part of the fiscal year 2013
budget certification, the Test Resource Management Center
opposed planned Air Force reductions that would have mothballed
seven wind tunnels without assessing the impact on other
agencies' programs or the cost to recover that mothballed
capability in the future.
The committee recognizes the importance that hypersonic
technology will play in meeting the defense needs of the
future. The committee is concerned that U.S. hypersonics
research, including the capability to conduct full-scale ground
tests, may not be keeping pace with international efforts in
this area. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense (DOD) should maintain priority on research,
development, test, and evaluation programs that support
hypersonics technology. Specifically, the committee urges the
DOD to continue utilizing hypervelocity ground testing of
advanced systems similar to the X-51 scramjet demonstration
system, the Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2, flyback booster
systems, and the stage separation of hypersonic interceptor
systems designed to perform launch-phase intercepts. The
committee also urges the Air Force to continue to utilize this
technology to support the reduction of costs and significantly
reduce the risk of flight testing scramjet and rocket-powered
short and long range hypervelocity weapon systems.
The committee recommends $232.6 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 62203F for aerospace propulsion research and
development activities.
Industrial Base for Space Surveillance Optics
The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency has recently completed testing of the Space
Surveillance Telescope (SST), and transitioned the program to
the Air Force Space Command. The committee also recognizes that
the Department of Defense's strategic budget guidance may have
unexpected implications for the health and viability of the
industrial base required to design, build, and maintain
additional SSTs, including the polishing, repair,
refurbishment, and availability of spares for the large
diameter optics. The committee encourages the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, along with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, to review the
U.S. industrial base for large diameter optics to avoid the
irreversible loss of the skilled workforce, and to ensure the
Air Force and other agencies have future access to an
industrial capability to provide precision large diameter
optics.
Infrared Search and Track System Development
The budget request contained $84.3 million in PE 24136N for
continued development of an infrared search and track (IRST)
capability for Navy F/A-18 aircraft, but contained no funding
for development of an infrared search and track capability for
Air Force F-15 or F-16 aircraft.
The committee supports the Navy's effort to rapidly develop
the IRST capability for Navy F/A-18 aircraft and believes that
the combination of this new sensor and the deployment of the
AIM-9X Block II and AIM-120D air-to-air missile could provide a
significant increase in capability in challenging electronic
warfare environments. The committee is concerned, however, with
the Air Force's lack of research and development investment in
this potentially critical technology. The committee notes that
even if the F-35 program remains on track, the Air Force will
still operate the F-15 and F-16 for many decades. The committee
believes that the addition of IRST capability to Air Force F-15
and F-16 aircraft could greatly enhance the value of these
fourth generation fighter aircraft in the future. The committee
encourages the Air Force to budget for investment and
deployment of IRST capability as it develops its future budget
requests.
The committee recommends $84.3 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 24136N for continued development of an
infrared search and track (IRST) capability for Navy F/A-18
aircraft.
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System
The committee believes that (1) improvements to the space
situational awareness and space command and control
capabilities of the United States are necessary, and (2) the
Department should leverage existing investments in government
and commercial capabilities to the fullest extent practical.
The committee is aware that the Joint Space Operations
Center Mission System (JMS) is a program of critical importance
that is being designed to deliver an integrated, net-centric
space situational awareness and command and control capability.
The committee is also aware that this capability requires
timely migration from fragile legacy components.
The committee commends the Air Force for restructuring the
JMS program to reduce cost and accelerate transition by
enabling competition and leveraging government and commercial
applications. Ultimately, the committee expects the Air Force
to select and/or develop the solution that best serves the
warfighters' needs. The committee encourages the Department to
fulfill its requirements by using existing or easily-modified
Government and commercial applications, when possible, to
achieve efficiency and cost effectiveness. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with
the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to
certify and report to the congressional defense committees
within 270 days of the date of enactment of this act, that
thorough market research and technical evaluation of relevant
non-developmental items, that could provide a lower cost and
earlier transition compared to a developmental solution, is
completed during the acquisition process. The report should
summarize the findings underpinning the certification. An
interim report, in briefing format, should also be provided no
later than March 1, 2013.
Materials Affordability Initiative
The budget request contained $47.8 million in PE 63112F for
advanced materials for weapons systems. Of that amount, $3.9
million was requested for the Metals Affordability Initiative
(MAI) program.
The committee notes that MAI is public-private partnership
that includes the entire domestic specialty aerospace metals
industrial manufacturing base, which produces the strategic and
critical metals aluminum, beryllium, nickel-base superalloys
and titanium. MAI projects have involved participants from over
60 additional industrial companies, including over 45 small
businesses, 20 universities, and 3 National Laboratories
located in 35 states. The committee recognizes that MAI has
demonstrated significant improvements in the manufacture of
specialty metals for aerospace applications for the government
and aerospace industry, and provides the warfighter with metals
of improved strength and durability, often at a reduced cost.
The committee encourages the Air Force to expand government
participation in MAI to include other military departments and
defense agencies, and to look at opportunities to expand to
areas of metals affordability beyond aerospace applications.
The committee recommends, $57.8 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 63112F for the MAI program.
Operationally Responsive Space
The budget request contained $10.0 million in PEs 63430F,
63423F, 63438F, 64441F, 64858F for five different programs to
integrate the ORS concept into the entire space architecture.
The budget request contained no funds in PE 64857F for the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program.
The committee is aware of the Department's plan to
eliminate the Operationally Responsive Space program office and
to transfer the remaining efforts to other space programs in
order to better integrate the ORS concept into the entire space
architecture. The committee is concerned with this plan and is
not convinced that it will fully address joint military
operational requirements for on-demand space support and
reconstitution.
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) established the 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.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Executive Agent for Space to submit to the congressional
defense committees a detailed strategic plan by November 30,
2012, that addresses how the Air Force will implement the
mission of the ORS program as laid out in section 2273a of
title 10, United States Code: (1) to contribute to the
development of low-cost, rapid reaction payloads, busses, space
lift, and launch control capabilities, in order to fulfill
joint military operational requirements for on-demand space
support and reconstitution; and (2) to coordinate and execute
operationally responsive space efforts across the Department of
Defense with respect to planning, acquisition, and operations.
The plan should address the required funding for implementing
this mission and how it will preserve this program's
alternative approach to space acquisition.
Because the committee does not have a detailed
understanding of the Department's plan for preserving the ORS
mission without the ORS program office, the committee rejects
the Department's legislative proposal to repeal the current
statute that requires the Secretary of Defense to establish an
office to be known as the ORS program office.
The committee recommends a decrease of $10 million, in PEs
63430F, 63423F, 63438F, 64441F, 64858F for the integration of
the ORS concept into the entire space architecture. Instead,
the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE
64857F for the Department to continue the ORS program as it
develops a strategic plan that addresses the mission of the ORS
program office as laid out in section 2273a of title 10.
Realignment of Airbase Technologies Division
The committee notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) maintains an Airbase Technologies Division to research
challenges associated with deploying and maintaining
expeditionary airfields. The committee is aware that the Air
Force is significantly reducing its investment in this area and
ultimately plans to divest itself of this research program. The
committee is concerned that there are 23 civilian billets
associated with the Airbase Technologies Division, but that
there is no plan for the disposition of that workforce. The
committee recognizes that with the uncertainly over the future
status of this workforce, the Air Force risks losing important
skills and expertise as civilian scientists and engineers leave
AFRL employment to pursue opportunities elsewhere. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days
after the date of the date of enactment of this Act on the
disposition plans for that workforce. The report should address
the Air Force's plan for reassigning, realigning, or
eliminating the residual workforce from the Airbase
Technologies Division. It should also address how the Air Force
will meet future civil engineering resourcing and research and
development requirements to ensure a viable, long term program.
Space-Based Nuclear Detection
The committee reaffirms the importance of a space-based
nuclear detection capability. The committee has not yet
received the plan required in section 419 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) which required the Secretary of Defense in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to develop a way forward for space-based nuclear detection
sensors. The committee notes that such a plan remains necessary
to understand the way ahead to ensure that this capability is
available, especially in the geosynchronous orbit, following
the decision not to integrate the Space and Atmospheric Burst
Reporting System into the Space Based Infrared System
satellites. The committee expects that the requirement for
maintaining nuclear detection capability will be addressed.
Space Situational Awareness Fence Program
The budget request contained $267.3 million, in PE 64425F
for continued development of the Space Fence system. The United
States' reliance on space-based capabilities is growing
exponentially; and, as summarized recently in the National
Security Space Strategy, space is increasingly congested,
contested, and competitive. Space debris is growing, increasing
the potential for collisions with operational satellites and
threatening our national security space assets. The Air Force
Space Fence program will replace the existing surveillance
system, over fifty years old, which does not have the
capability to detect smaller objects and has significant
coverage gaps in the southern hemisphere. The Space Fence is a
major component of the nation's space situational awareness
architecture.
The committee urges the Air Force to keep the program on
schedule to provide the first S band radar surveillance site
with initial operational capability for low and medium orbits
by fiscal year 2017.
Space Test Program
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 65864F for
the Space Test Program (STP), a decrease of $36.89 million.
The committee is concerned about the proposed cancellation
of STP and its impact on long-term investment in space assets.
Since 1965, STP has conducted space test missions for the
purpose of accelerating the Department of Defense's (DOD) space
technology transformation while lowering developmental risk.
The cost-effective program flies an optimally selected number
of DOD sponsored experiments consistent with priority,
opportunity, and funding. The program serves a unique role in
advancing technology that has become the foundation of core
space capabilities.
The committee notes the statement in the President's budget
justification that STP missions are the most cost-effective way
to flight test new space system technologies, concepts, and
designs. The committee shares this assessment, but it is
concerned by the STP proposed cancellation.
The committee recommends $45.0 million, an increase of
$34.9 million, in PE 65864F for the Space Test Program.
Specialized Undergraduate Flight Training Advanced Trainer Replacement
The budget request contained $1.6 million in PE 64233F for
the advanced trainer replacement (T-X) program development. The
T-X program is planned to replace the aging T-38C aircraft and
its ground-based training system for advanced pilot training.
The committee notes that the T-38C has been in service since
1962, and is now in its third service life with an average of
more than 14,000 hours per aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the T-X program
and supports the Department of the Air Force's efforts to move
forward with this critical initiative. The committee notes
that, compared to the budget request for fiscal year 2012, the
budget request for fiscal year 2013 would delay the T-X initial
operational capability (IOC) from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal
year 2020, and believes that any further delay in the program
schedule may create safety and operational risks to future
pilots through the operation of an aging T-38 fleet, while it
may also increase fifth generation pilot training shortfalls
for the F-22, F-35 and future long range strike aircraft. The
committee is concerned that the budget request of $1.6 million
for fiscal year 2013, and $6.0 million planned for fiscal year
2014, may not support the current acquisition schedule which
would begin the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)
program phase in fiscal year 2014.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of the
Air Force to review, and if necessary, revise its T-X program
budget plans for the fiscal year 2014 budget request to support
T-X program entry into the EMD phase not later than fiscal year
2014 so that the T-X IOC can be achieved in fiscal year 2020.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Department
plans to conduct its industry day, and other activities prior
to its submission of a T-X request for proposal, in calendar
year 2012, and urges the Department to adhere to this plan.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $18.0 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee
recommends $18.5 billion, an increase of $496.1 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Active Denial Technology and Roadmap
The committee is aware that more than $120 million has been
invested over more than a decade in the development of non-
lethal, directed energy active denial technology, yet the
Department of Defense has not established a program of record,
or fielded systems to our service members, despite a number of
Urgent Operational Needs requests from field commanders. The
committee strongly supports this non-lethal capability and has
authorized continued funding for next generation solid state
active denial technology to support the Army's Ground Combat
Vehicle non-lethal requirements.
In 2006, the Department issued the only policy statement to
date on active denial technology, noting ``support for the
development'' of the technology, which ``offers the possibility
for wide-ranging application in multiple scenarios where we
lack suitable means of anti-personnel action.'' The committee
is concerned that a lack of further policy guidance for the
continued development, deployment and export of active denial
technology is inhibiting the utilization of this capability,
even as other nations such as Russia has recently announced an
intention to also begin development of this technology. The
committee is equally concerned by recent inconsistent export
licensing decisions related to the marketing and sale of this
capability to international partners.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a policy update and roadmap for active denial
technology, including the Active Denial System, to the
congressional defense committees by July 16, 2012. The policy
shall clarify the Department's position on the further
development, deployment and export of the capability and the
roadmap shall provide a detailed consideration of future
funding, development and deployment plans; potential
opportunities for leveraging U.S. investment by fielding the
capability domestically and internationally; the Department's
position, including specific criteria used to evaluate
marketing and sales licenses (in coordination with the
Department of State), for coalition partners to procure U.S.
active denial technology.
Aegis Ashore Program
The budget request contained $276.3 million in PE 64880C
for the Land Based SM-3 or ``Aegis Ashore'' concept.
The committee notes that the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense
Review (BMDR) generated a requirement by the Administration to
provide an Aegis capability ashore as a key component of the
European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). The committee further
notes that two stalwart allies, Romania and Poland, have
enthusiastically responded to United States plans to host an
Aegis Ashore site in their countries.
The committee notes, in another section of this report,
concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office on
the high concurrency and technological risk forced by the
timeline for deployment of the Aegis Ashore system.
The committee recommends $276.3 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64880C for the Land Based SM-3 or ``Aegis
Ashore'' concept.
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Combat System
The budget request contained $260.60 million in PE 64307N
for the Surface Combatant Combat Systems Engineering for the
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapons System.
The committee notes that the Aegis BMD Weapons System is
the world's premier proven naval defense system and the sea-
based element of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System.
Aegis BMD plays an active role in protecting U.S. deployed
forces and allies from enemy ballistic missile attack. The
committee further notes that the Aegis BMD system has been
included in the Administration's European Phased Adaptive
Approach to missile defense and has undergone extensive and
successful missile defense testing.
The committee recommends $260.6 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64307N for the Surface Combatant Combat
Systems Engineering for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) Weapons System.
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
The budget request contained $992.2 million in PE 63892C
for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system.
The committee also supports the initiation of a Service
Life Extension Program (SLEP) by the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency, which could result in a significant increase in
the service life of the SM-3 IA interceptor and the retention
of as many as 41 IA interceptors in the inventory by the end of
2017 that would have otherwise been transitioned out of the
fleet. The committee is aware combatant commander interest in
ensuring the largest possible inventory of Aegis BMD
interceptors.
The committee recommends $992.2. million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63892C for the BMD system.
Airborne Infrared and Advanced Remote Sensor Technology
The budget request contained $58.7 million in PE 64886C for
the Advanced Remote Sensor Technology (ARST).
The committee believes that early tracking and
discrimination of ballistic missiles is critical in providing
notification and essential cueing information to other
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (BMDS). The committee
supported the Airborne Infrared system for this reason. The
committee understands ARST is the Missile Defense Agency's
(MDA) revised concept for this system. The committee believes
that a forward-deployed ARST would enable existing BMDS radar
assets to search a smaller volume with less radar energy
required to detect threats. This translates to an increased
raid threat handling capability.
While MDA's ultimate goal with the ARST program may be
space-based sensors, the committee believes that the program
could produce technologies and resulting capabilities with
near-term applications beyond space. With continued
development, these Airborne Infrared sensors could be used as a
flexible, rapidly deployable missile defense system component
to provide the earliest possible fine track and discrimination
of boosting threat missiles. Moreover, advanced sensor
technologies developed for missile defense also can provide
benefits to other defense and intelligence missions, such as
air-to-air engagements in difficult environments; airborne
weapons layer surveillance, acquisition, cueing, and fire
control; maritime domain awareness; and ballistic missile
defense technical collection.
To prevent wasteful duplication of effort, the committee
believes MDA should coordinate with the Services and the
Intelligence Community to ensure that all potential
applications for ARST investments are considered fully and
adequately. In particular, the MDA should ensure that advanced
sensor development takes into consideration any near-term, non-
space missile defense capabilities. Exploiting these
technologies in multiple mission areas may also enable future
cost sharing and technology transfer opportunities. The
committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees within
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the
results of coordination with the military services and the
intelligence community.
The committee recommends $58.7 million, the amount of the
request, in PE 64886C for ARST.
AN/TPY-2 Radar
The committee notes the exceptional capability of the TPY-2
radar, and believes such capability should be fully explored by
the Defense Department. The committee is aware that there have
been recent reports that provide recommendations for how to
further the capability of this system.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by November 30, 2012, on the
stacked TPY-2 array concept described in the National Academies
``Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase
Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives,''
conducted pursuant to section 232 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417).
Assessment on Inner-Aural Communications Hearing Protection
Capabilities
The committee is concerned that hearing loss continues to
remain one of the most prevalent long-term injuries for
military personnel. The committee is concerned that many
military personnel may not wear their issued earplugs because
current earplugs could potentially limit situational awareness
as well as reduce the warfighter's ability to communicate over
handheld and man-portable radios. The committee understands
that U.S. Special Operations Command has developed and fielded
communications technology that both increases situational
awareness and mitigates the risk of permanent hearing loss
through the use of enhanced inner-aural hearing protection and
hearing enhancement protective technology.
The committee believes that the military services should
consider additional investment in such technology and directs
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to brief the congressional defense committees within
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the status
of the Department's efforts in developing technology to reduce
service-related hearing loss, as well as the advisability and
feasibility of equipping military personnel with inner-aural
communications hearing protection and enhancement systems that
could potentially reduce the risk of hearing loss.
Basic Research
The committee is aware that funding for basic research is a
critical component of the Department of Defense's strategy for
maintaining technological superiority over future adversaries.
While much of the recent focus on supporting the warfighter has
been on satisfying requests for urgent operational needs, the
committee recognizes that long-term modernization needs also
require investment and attention. Not only do these basic
research initiatives support cutting-edge scientific research,
they also contribute significantly to undergraduate
scholarships and graduate research fellowships that strengthen
the U.S. scientific and technical workforce.
The committee notes that a recent Defense Science Board
study has also determined that the Department's basic research
program is valuable, comparable to other basic research
programs in the government and well-suited to the needs of the
Department. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department
to continue to prioritize and protect these investments vital
to the sustained health and future modernization of the
military.
Blast Gauges
The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) recently completed a rapid development
effort to field sensors to measure blast effects and provide
gross measures indicating the potential for traumatic brain
injury (TBI). DARPA developed a simple sensor, easily
integrated into a soldier's ensemble, for a cost of less than
$50 per sensor. The committee understands that these sensors
are now available through the Rapid Equipping Force to any unit
that requests them. The committee encourages the military
services to begin using these devices, and also to develop the
necessary tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) to ensure
proper employment, effective systematic data collection, and
integration of that data into ongoing TBI research. To enhance
the development of TTPs and data collection processes, the
committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps identify and assign blast gauges
to specific route clearance units to be deployed in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, or undergoing training in simulated
blast environments, where these blast gauges can be utilized in
a realistic operational setting.
Chemical Demilitarization and Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense recently
approved and announced revised cost and schedule estimates for
the final two U.S. chemical weapons destruction plants. The
committee understands that the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives (ACWA) program's life-cycle costs are now
estimated at $10.6 billion, with destruction completion
estimates for the chemical weapons stockpiles located at Pueblo
Chemical Depot, Colorado, adjusted to 2019 and at the Blue
Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, to 2023. The committee further
understands that this adds about $2 billion and 2 years to a
previous program estimate to allow additional time and
resources if necessary.
The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense
is considering a legislative proposal that would authorize ACWA
to consider use of Explosive Destruction Technologies, and
other technologies for the treatment and disposal of agent or
energetic hydrolysates, if problems with the current on-site
treatment of hydrolysates are encountered.
The committee is concerned that these proposals have not
been properly coordinated with the congressional defense
committees and that this issue warrants further review.
Additionally, the committee is concerned that the revised cost
and schedule estimates for the final two U.S. chemical weapons
destruction plants may not accurately reflect potential costs
out to the adjusted timelines of 2019 and 2023.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the congressional defense committees within 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act on the recently
approved revised cost and schedule estimates for the ACWA
program and any legislative proposals or changes being
considered by the Department of Defense in support of the
Chemical Demilitarization and ACWA programs.
Combating Terrorism and Emergency Response Technology Innovation
The committee supports the research, development, testing,
and evaluation (RDT&E) of certain technologies that combat
terrorism, enhance emergency response capabilities, and enable
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF). This includes
technologies that facilitate worldwide communications, improve
situational awareness, and enable command and control. The
committee also supports the development of certain technologies
that would utilize mobile training content and distance
learning capabilities to realize efficiencies and improve SOF
and first responder proficiency in these critical areas. The
committee therefore encourages the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict to
continue RDT&E of certain technologies that support combating
terrorism, emergency response, and U.S. SOF through offices and
organizations such as the Combating Terrorism Technical Support
Office and the Technical Support Working Group.
Comparative Effectiveness Research for Orthotics and Prosthetics
The committee is aware that the use of improvised explosive
devices (IED) in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan has resulted in amputations becoming signature
injuries for this generation of service members. The committee
also recognizes that as IED threats continue to challenge U.S.
forces in the future, so will the threat of amputation
injuries. As a result, growing numbers of service members
require sophisticated orthotic and prosthetic care to respond
to these and other related injuries. The committee notes that
there is little comparative effectiveness and outcomes-based
research to establish the most appropriate services, supports,
and devices for different types of orthotic and prosthetic
patients. To deal with the long-term challenges posed by these
kinds of injuries, the committee believes the Department of
Defense should initiate a comparative effectiveness research
program for orthotics and prosthetics.
Concerns Related to High Concurrency and Technical Risk Associated with
the EPAA
The committee is aware that each year, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) prepares a report for the
congressional defense committees on the missile defense
programs of the United States pursuant to a mandate in the
national defense authorization acts since 2002.
The committee was pleased to see in the report prepared for
fiscal year 2011 that the GAO found that MDA has achieved
successes in areas like the delivery and performance of its
targets, which has been a concern in the past.
The committee is, however, concerned by GAO's findings in
its draft fiscal year 2012 report that ``during 2011, the
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the Aegis Standard
Missile 3 Block IB, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
experienced significant ill effects from concurrency.''
For nearly every missile defense program the GAO found high
levels of concurrency, which is defined as ``the overlap
between technology development or between product development
and production.'' GAO found that the discovery of a design
problem in the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD)
interceptors, mod CE2, while production was under way increased
costs, may require retrofit of fielded equipment, and delayed
delivery of those interceptors. As a result, flight and other
test-related costs to confirm capability have increased from
$236 million to about $1 billion; the committee notes these
costs involve four flight tests of the CE2 equipped
interceptor.
GAO also noted concurrency problems with regard to the many
systems and programs that relate to the European Phased
Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to deploy missile defense in Europe:
specifically the Aegis Ashore system, and potential
implications for the Romania Aegis Ashore deployment to
Romanian civil systems; the Precision Tracking Space System;
and the SM-3 IB, IIA, and IIB missiles.
The committee notes that concurrency has affected many
areas of the missile defense system and no system appears to
have been spared that concurrency, including the GMD system.
Regarding GMD, the committee is aware of the compressed
timelines to deploy missile defenses when the United States
withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. In
that circumstance, the United States had no homeland missile
defense and raced to deploy it to defend the homeland.
In the case of other systems, such as the EPAA's SM-3 IIB,
the committee notes that the GAO has stated that ``the need to
meet the presidential directive to field the SM-3 Block IIB by
the 2020 timeframe for European PAA Phase IV is a key driver
for the high levels of concurrency.'' The committee encourages
MDA to learn from these past mistakes.
The committee directs the Missile Defense Executive Board
(MDEB) to report to the congressional defense committees not
later than September 15, 2012, on its plans to address the
risks noted by the GAO in its April 2012 draft report; this
report should include an evaluation of mitigations and their
costs that may be necessary if the risks highlighted by GAO are
not resolved on a schedule consistent with the timelines
articulated in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review of 2010
concerning the EPAA's four-phased deployment and consistent
with the plan to update and field additional GMD systems.
The committee further notes that the OSD Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation office is currently working to develop a
comprehensive cost of the EPAA. The Committee expects the final
cost projection to be provided not later than the MDEB report
required by this section.
Conventional Prompt Global Strike
The budget request contained $110.4 million in PE 64165D8Z
for conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capability
development.
The budget request would fund the design, development, and
experimentation of boosters, payload delivery vehicles, non-
nuclear warheads, guidance systems, and mission planning and
enabling capabilities with the goal of competitive acquisition
beginning in fiscal year 2013 or fiscal year 2014. The
committee understands that timing will be driven by the outcome
of flight events and the budget.
The committee notes that while the first two HTV-2 tests
were unsuccessful (though it provided meaningful data for
review and concept development), the Army's Advanced Hypersonic
Weapon (AHW) concept, developed in concert with the Sandia
National Laboratory, was a success. The committee encourages
the Department to continue cost-effective technology
development and demonstration by leveraging the successful
flight test of the AHW FT-1A glide body and by utilizing this
ongoing program that can support prompt global strike
acquisition programs across the Department.
The committee encourages a broader examination of the trade
space of CPGS capabilities and concepts to meet warfighter
requirements. The committee is mindful of the letter received
by the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on May 20, 2011, from
the Under Secretary of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
that stated: ``The Department remains committed to using
industry competition for driving productivity and managing
program risks and costs. It is my intent to promote competition
in all areas of CPGS acquisition at the system, subsystem, and
component levels.'' The committee understands that this
continues to be the Department's approach and commends the
Department for it.
The committee also encourages the Department to draw on the
lessons of the 2008 National Academy of Sciences review and
final report ``U.S. Conventional Prompt Global Strike: Issues
for 2008 and Beyond,'' completed pursuant to the conference
report (H. Rept. 109-707) accompanying the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 in which the conferees
recommended a series of verification and transparency measures,
in the context of their recommendation for development of CPGS,
that could address concerns related to verification,
transparency, and nuclear versus non-nuclear discrimination.
Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by December 1, 2012, detailing how the Department
plans to use competition and integrate verification and
transparency measures as it develops and deploys CPGS
capabilities.
The committee recommends $110.4 million, the amount of the
request, in PE 64165D8Z for conventional prompt global strike
(CPGS) capability development.
Counterterrorism and Irregular Warfare Capabilities
The budget request contained $77.1 million in PE 63122D for
activities in the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office
(CTTSO). The budget request also contained $26.3 million in PE
63121D for activities in Special Operations/Low-Intensity
Conflict Advanced Development. Of the amount, $7.5 million was
requested for the Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Low-Intensity
Conflict (EOD/LIC) program, $13.0 million was for the Irregular
Warfare Support (IWS) program, and $1.9 million was for
Information Dissemination Concepts.
The committee notes that according to the Department of
Defense (DOD) new strategic guidance released in January 2012,
``counter terrorism and irregular warfare'' will remain primary
DOD missions and, furthermore, that the Department ``will
continue to build and sustain tailored capabilities appropriate
for counter terrorism and irregular warfare.'' The committee
believes that irregular warfare (IW) will be the likely form of
warfare confronting the United States, and that developing and
institutionalizing IW capability across the military services
is critical to military success.
The committee notes that CTTSO plays a unique role in
front-end research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)
to help warfighters rapidly acquire ``tailored capabilities''
for counterterrorism and IW. Under the authority of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-
Intensity Conflict (ASD SO/LIC), CTTSO works with interagency
and international partners to identify combating terrorism
capability requirements; select promising proposals for
advanced technology development; and rapidly deliver capability
to the warfighter through RDT&E support. The committee has
consistently recognized the value CTTSO adds to rapid
acquisition of IW capabilities through its business process for
evaluating proposals; experience interacting with numerous
interagency and international partners; and expertise in
advanced development prototyping. Specifically, the committee
report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2011, praised the Irregular
Warfare Support (IWS) Legacy program for being ``immediately
effective in disrupting terrorist network activities, saving
lives, and building a leave-behind indigenous capability.'' The
committee noted that the Legacy program is one of many CTTSO
programs that develop innovative, non-materiel, and multi-
disciplinary methodologies and strategies for disrupting
irregular and asymmetric threats and also directed the
Secretary of Defense to assess the program's applicability
against other network-based threats.
The committee has expressed concerns regarding CTTSO's
location under ASD SO/LIC and the limited funding it receives
compared to the emphasis on IW within DOD strategies. In the
conference report (H. Rept. 111-288) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the conferees
expressed concern that, ``(1) this small program office in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense appears to be the only
entity in the Department, and perhaps in the executive branch,
engaged in these types of activities; and (2) that so little
funding is requested each year to sustain such activities and
to scale up those that prove to be successful.''
The committee notes that CTTSO has program management
authority for three sub-organizations: the Technical Support
Working Group (TSWG), the EOD/LIC program, and the IWS program.
The committee is concerned that projected funding for IWS, EOD/
LIC, and Information Dissemination Concepts (IDC) are reduced
across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) before being
eliminated in fiscal year 2016.
Given the Department's guidance to ``build and sustain
tailored capabilities'' for IW missions, the likelihood that
future challenges will be irregular in nature, and the enduring
need to maintain a robust RDT&E and flexible procurement and
acquisition capabilities to support IW requirements, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to reexamine the
funding reductions to IWS, EOD/LIC, and IDC through fiscal year
2016.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, the Director of
the Office of Secretary of Defense for Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation and other relevant offices, to include those
within the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to
brief the congressional defense committees within 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act on CTTSO funding changes
over the FYDP and present options for fulfilling IW rapid
capability development gaps if funding is eliminated for the
IWS program, EOD/LIC, and IDC.
The committee recommends $102.1 million, an increase of
$25.0 million, in PE 63122D for activities in the Combating
Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO).
Critical Gaps in Undersea Mobility Capabilities
The budget request contained $26.4 million in Program
Element (PE)1160483BB for Special Operations Forces Underwater
Systems.
The committee is aware that U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) has realigned the Undersea Mobility Program to comply
with the additional oversight requirements pursuant to Section
144 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81). The committee is also aware that the
proposed program structure for fiscal year 2013 includes
scaled-down requirements for dry combat submersibles to operate
via host surface ship only with moderate capacity and varying
endurance. The committee is concerned that frequent program and
strategy changes to the Undersea Mobility Program and a lack of
funding priority in critical research, development, testing and
evaluation, have delayed the introduction of advanced
capabilities for both wet combat submersible replacement and
dry combat submersible development.
The committee is concerned that the current program
schedule for dry combat submersibles, in particular, will not
field an operational evaluation platform until early 2015 with
extended integrated testing not taking place until 2016. Given
current dry combat submersible capability gaps and a potential
shift in strategic emphasis to the Asia-Pacific and other
regions that present anti-access and area-denial challenges,
the committee is concerned that USSOCOM's Undersea Mobility
Program will be unable to meet potential geographic combatant
command requirements to operate in denied maritime areas from
strategic distances. Additionally, the committee is concerned
that the highly perishable and technical skill sets required to
operate wet and dry combat submersibles resident within the
Naval Special Warfare community have not been fully exercised
and utilized in recent years, thereby increasing capability
gaps and risks to the overall program.
The committee has previously expressed concern with these
current capability gaps and recognized the operational
importance of the Undersea Mobility Program to provide
technologically-advanced undersea mobility platforms for U.S.
Naval Special Warfare Command and USSOCOM. The committee
therefore encourages the Commander of U.S. Special Operations
Command to review the current Undersea Mobility Program to
mitigate risk, potentially accelerate the fielding of safe,
efficient, and financially sound operational wet and dry
systems, and to continually communicate with the congressional
defense committees to ensure programmatic success and prevent
previous program shortfalls.
The committee recommends $61.4 million, an increase of $35
million, Special Operations Forces Underwater Systems.
Cyber Research of Embedded Systems
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has increased focus and resources on dealing with cyber
security threats to DOD networks and systems. The committee
also notes that the decreasing size and increasing
computational power of many microelectronics has helped embed
computers into practically every weapons system within the
Department, leading to an exponential increase in the
complexity of protecting those systems. A 2010 report by the
JASON Program Office noted that, ``while the level of effort
expended in securing networks and computers is significant,
current approaches in this area overly rely on empiricism and
are viewed to have had only limited success.''
The committee supports the Department's strategy for
securing its computer networks and systems, but also urges the
Department to embrace a broader research agenda to protect all
computing resources, including embedded systems. The committee
believes that Centers of Excellence exist within military
organizations, and should be resourced to carry out the
research, in addition to the development, of suitable defensive
capabilities. As necessary, the committee also encourages the
Department to look at fostering cybersecurity capabilities in
organizations that traditionally may not have been involved in
information systems protection, in order to explore new
approaches and expand the overall capability base.
Defense Microelectronics
The committee is concerned about the state of defense
microelectronics, with regard to both the availability of a
trusted supply chain, as well as the long-term health and
vitality of the industrial base. The committee fully recognizes
the critical importance to the Department of Defense of
sustaining and improving the supply of trusted semiconductors,
supply chain components and inspection tools manufactured in
the U.S. The committee is also concerned that the Department's
lack of a comprehensive microelectronics strategy, as called
for by the Senate committee report (S. Rept. 112-26)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, poses a challenge in supporting decisions regarding
what course of action may be most beneficial to that industrial
base.
The committee recognizes the changing nature of the
microelectronics industrial base, as well as the significant
cost pressures associated with recapitalization and retooling
to accommodate these changes. The committee is aware that
industry is potentially facing a major transition to larger
sized, 450mm wafers that will allow the manufacture of more
advanced semiconductor devices at a lower cost. The committee
believes that to get there will likely require the development
of the next generation of manufacturing tools. The committee
recognizes the value of pursuing technology research for other
technologies that support fabless and maskless semiconductor
development as a way to change the paradigm for the
microelectronics industrial sector. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to complete the requested defense
microelectronics study, which should examine ways of supporting
further technology development for fabless and maskless
semiconductor production, as well as manufacturing tools for
450 mm wafers. Furthermore, the committee encourages the Deputy
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy to examine the challenges to the microelectronics
industrial base during its Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier
analyses.
Finally, the committee recognizes the need to maintain and
sustain an in-house capability to design and manufacture
obsolete and hard-to-find microelectronics that complements but
does not compete with industry. The committee is aware that the
Department relies upon some types of microelectronics for
decades, during which time commercial sources may no longer be
available. Commercial pressures and incentives typically do not
align with Department needs for low production quantity and
long sustainment periods, driving the need for in-house
solutions. The committee is also aware that the threat to U.S.
microelectronics is complex, ranging from counterfeit parts to
sophisticated manipulation of commercially available products.
The committee notes that the Defense Microelectronics Activity
(DMEA) is focused on the unique and trusted strategic
semiconductor supply chain requirements of the U.S. government
in the short and long term. The committee supports the mission
of DMEA, provided it continues to maintain processes and
capabilities that leverage industry without inadvertently
competing with it.
Department of Defense Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in the
National Airspace System
The budget request contained $7.7 million in PE 35219A,
$18.0 million in PE 35220F, $0.7 million in PE 63211F, and $8.9
million in PE 64400D8Z for sense and avoid technology
development to further unmanned aircraft system (UAS)
operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). The budget
request also included $37.7 million in Aircraft Procurement,
Army, for procurement of Ground Based Sense and Avoid (GBSAA)
systems for the Grey Eagle UAS program to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration requirements to ``sense and avoid'' and
permit expanded training opportunities and operation of the
Grey Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle in the national airspace.
The committee supports these projects. UAS have become a
significant component of the Nation's defense capability, as
well as having the potential to provide support during a crisis
and disaster response. The committee also recognizes the
contribution that the Joint Planning and Development Office's
(JPDO) report, ``NextGen Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research,
Development and Demonstration Roadmap,'' dated March 15, 2012,
has made by providing a multi-agency perspective of the
technology required to enable UAS operations and integration in
the next generation NAS. The report is a joint publication of
the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the Department of Defense (DOD), the
Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland
Security. The committee supports and encourages a collaborative
relationship between the Department of Defense and other JPDO
partners in order to expedite development of the necessary
technologies to solve the challenges of UAS-NAS integration.
While supporting the Department of Defense's investment in
``sense and avoid'' technologies and system development, the
committee is concerned about the overall plan for development
and system fielding. Therefore, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence within 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act on current DOD
capabilities and the program for GBSAA and airborne sense and
avoid (ABSAA) development and fielding in support of UAS
operations in the NAS. The report should include: the
technology development and procurement roadmap for the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the military services, and
include the required capabilities and systems for each, as
applicable; the fiscal year 2013 Future Years Defense Program
research and development and procurement budgets for each; a
description of the technology development progress made and
procurement actions taken to date; and the current GBSAA and
ABSAA fielded capabilities. Finally, the report should include
the projects the Department of Defense intends to address that
are included in the multi-agency JPDO report, ``NextGen UAS
Research, Development, and Demonstration Roadmap.''
Design Research to Improve Safety of Health Information Technology
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
made substantial investments in sustaining the current
generation of health information technology (IT) systems, and
working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop the
next generation of electronic health records. However, the
committee is concerned that the Department has not focused
sufficient resources on research to improve design usability of
the human-machine interface for these systems prior to entering
system development. The committee notes that a recent study by
the National Academies Institute of Medicine titled, ``Health
IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care''
linked patient safety to sound design and development. As the
report stated, research is needed to identify characteristics
of safe systems and additional research is needed specifically
about the impact of design deficiencies on patient impact.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the
Deputy Chief Management Officer, to brief the House Committee
on Armed Services within 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act on research being conducted within the
Department of Defense related to human-machine interfaces for
design usability of health IT systems. Areas of supporting
research may include:
(1) User-centered design and human factors applied to
health IT;
(2) Safe implementation and use of health IT by all
users;
(3) Socio-technical systems associated with health
IT; and
(4) Impact of policy decisions on health IT use in
clinical practice.
The briefing should also address how the research is being
integrated into current health IT programs, as well as identify
any gaps where additional research should be initiated.
Detection of Non-Signature Based Cyber Threats
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not providing sufficient resources to acquire capabilities
to detect and protect against cyber threats for which a
signature has not yet been developed. The need persists for
real-time detection and mitigation of non-signature-based
threats that can operate in high-bandwidth networks and can
also evaluate network traffic for malicious activity. The
committee is aware that there are technologies that might
address the need, but they require additional development,
testing, and operational evaluation. The committee recommends
that the Department establish a process for rapidly
identifying, testing and evaluating potential solutions and
accelerate adoption and implementation of those technologies to
meet this pressing need.
Diluted Nerve Agent Laboratory Decertification
The committee commends the US Army Medical Research
Institute for Chemical Defense (USAMRICD) for its critical
research in the area of medical chemical countermeasures
research and development. However, the committee is aware that
USAMRICD is decertifying all laboratories in the handling and
administration of dilute agent with the exception of the
Battelle Memorial Institute's Biomedical Research Center and
the USAMRICD Collaborative Research Facility at Aberdeen
Proving Ground. Decertified laboratories will be required to
transfer their research to these approved facilities in order
to continue working with diluted agents.
While the committee is aware of the budget and safety
concerns that influenced this decision, the committee remains
concerned about the potential negative consequences that will
result from the transfer of research to these two facilities.
The committee is particularly concerned about the effects that
this move will have on research that advances of treatments for
nerve agent-induced neurotoxicity.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services no later than 90
days after enactment of this Act on the potential impact on
diluted agent research due to this change, and the plans to
mitigate that impact.
Directed Energy Missile Defense Program
The budget request contained $46.9 million in PE 63901C for
Directed Energy Research.
The committee notes that this year's budget request
terminates the Airborne Laser Test Bed program. This program
demonstrated the world's first megawatt class airborne laser,
tracked 11 boosting missiles, and destroyed a foreign material
asset ballistic missile. The committee notes, however, that the
Government Accountability Office in 2011 had expressed concern
about continuing technical issues affecting the test bed's
experiments and about flight test failures.
The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency
to provide a report to the congressional defense committee by
July 31, 2012, on the costs involved with returning the
Airborne Laser aircraft to an operational readiness status to
continue technology development and testing, and to be ready to
deploy in an operational contingency, if needed, to respond to
rapidly developing threats from the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea.
The committee recommends $76.9 million, an increase of
$30.0 million, in PE 63901C to enable MDA to preserve the
skilled workforce that was involved in the Airborne Laser Test
Bed program and to accelerate experimentation with next
generation directed energy system development, including the
planned testing of the Phantom Eye system. The committee
believes these funds can also support and accelerate the
directed energy research applicable to missile defense that is
occurring at the nuclear weapons laboratories.
Early Development Activities to Improve Acquisition Outcomes
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has made a number of improvements to respond to the concerns
raised by the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-23) related to the inadequacy pre-developmental
planning and systems engineering. The committee is encouraged
that the Department has placed greater emphasis on making
improvements earlier in the pre-acquisition stages of the
developmental cycle. In addition, the committee notes that each
of the military departments has implemented, or is proposing to
implement, improvements that are intended to pay dividends in
the near future. For example, the Air Force has implemented
funding for requirements analysis and maturation in order to do
more rigorous developmental planning before programs are
proposed. The Army has initiated a technology maturation
program element that should improve the transition of promising
science and technology research into programs of record. In
compliance with Public Law 111-23, the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OASD (R&E))
is growing a cadre within its organization to improve systems
engineering and developmental testing. The committee notes that
the budget request contained an additional request for OASD
(R&E) to have the authority to initiate a new project called
``The Effects Chain Analysis Cell'' which is intended to
provide modeling and simulation tools for planners to do more
quantitative trade space analysis as part of the analysis of
alternatives. The committee supports this request.
Foreign Materiel Exploitation
The committee is concerned that the level of sophistication
in foreign systems has increased exponentially over the past
decade, primarily due to widespread use of complex digital
devices, such as digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) and
field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA). These systems are
proliferating at an alarming rate and pose a serious threat to
the national security and critical domestic infrastructure.
The committee is further concerned that there are
insufficient facilities for classified lab space to conduct
integrated weapon system analysis, which limits the quality and
quantity of foreign threat data provided to the warfighter,
acquisition community, and policymakers. This deprives the
intelligence community of an opportunity to generate scientific
and technical intelligence (S&TI) that has historically proven
a key driver for the development of tactics, techniques, and
procedures, and force modernization requirements. Lower volume
and quality of S&TI increases the risk of technological
surprise encountered on the battlefield, ultimately increasing
the vulnerability of U.S. forces in future conflicts.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to
take all steps necessary to ensure the military departments and
defense agencies have the facilities and resources necessary to
exploit and counter current foreign military systems.
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
The budget request contained $903.1 million in PE 63882C
for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. The
committee recommends fully funding the President's request of
$903.1 million, and the committee recommends an additional
$356.284 million for PE 63882C for fiscal year 2013, which this
section would authorize.
The committee is aware that the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense (GMD) system is the only system that presently provides
missile defense protection to the United States, and it will
remain the only system able to provide that defense until at
least 2020, assuming the SM-3 IIB missile is able to provide
protection for the homeland in that year. The committee has
noted elsewhere in this report the concerns about the
acquisition strategy and other concerns about the IIB raised by
the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Science
Board, and the National Academies.
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 is aware that these two tests
involved the CE2 interceptor, as opposed to the CE1
interceptor, which is three for three in successful tests. The
committee notes these three tests were not threat
representative against an intercontinental ballistic missile,
which the committee addresses in another section of this
report.
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 does not
believe the appropriate reaction to these difficulties is to
cut the GMD budget.
The committee fully supports the request for an additional
five ground-based interceptors (GBI) to provide additional
flight test and reliability assets, though the committee is
concerned that even with these assets, there will not be
sufficient resources for GBI acquisition to support a more
robust GMD test program, which it recommends elsewhere in this
section.
The committee notes that improvement of the EKV was
intended from the very outset of the original GBI program. The
decision by the administration to cancel the Multiple Kill
Vehicle program and curtail further GBI development means there
is now no program to substantially improve or upgrade the
current EKV through its intended life until 2030. The committee
is concerned that without significant improvement, such as a
next-generation kill vehicle for the GBI, the GMD system may
not be able to keep pace with future threats. The committee
includes a recommendation to address this concern in another
provision of this report.
The committee recommends $1.3 billion, an increase of
$357.0 million, in PE 23735A for the AMPV program.
Information Technology Discharge Solutions
The committee is aware that some non-Department of Defense
acute care medical facilities utilize automated referral and
discharge processes known as Information Technology Discharge
Solutions (ITDS). These systems have the potential to provide
cost-avoidance and expeditious and seamless discharges from
acute care facilities. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to explore the feasibility of utilizing
an ITDS in military treatment medical facilities in order to
determine how such systems could integrate into the existing
information technology architecture and potentially save costs,
improve throughput, minimize safety risks, and improve the
efficiency of military medical facilities.
Innovation Program at the Defense Information Systems Agency
The committee is aware that the ability to innovate is
important for any agency within the Department of Defense, and
is especially important for any information technology (IT)
investments. For this reason, the committee recognizes the need
for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to have
stable and robust funding to support its ability to develop,
assess, and integrate emerging IT solutions that have the
potential to add great value to the Global Information Grid.
The committee believes that DISA's Chief Technology Officer has
crafted an effective vision for leveraging these funds to field
critical new warfighting capabilities and concepts through such
vehicles as Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations. The
committee encourages DISA to continue to pursue opportunities
to broaden and deepen its innovation capacity, and encourages
DISA to pursue new funding sources like the Rapid Innovation
Fund to do so.
Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense
The budget request contained $99.9 million in PE 63913C for
Israeli cooperative programs for the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA). Of this amount, $10.7 million is requested for the Arrow
Weapon System (AWS) improvement program, $50.9 million is
requested for the Arrow-3 upper tier system, and $38.3 million
is requested for the David's Sling Weapons System (DSWS).
The fiscal year 2013 request represents a decrease of $136
million from the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level.
The committee supports and recommends this request and
recommends an increase of $168 million as requested by
Government of Israel to meet its security requirements, of
which $23.8 million is to be provided to the Arrow-3 upper tier
system, $33.7 million is to be provided to accelerate
improvements to the AWS improvement program, $72.2 million is
to be provided to the joint development of the DSWS, and $39.3
million is to be provided for DSWS co-production activities.
The committee notes that the threats from ballistic
missiles are a direct and increasing danger to the state of
Israel. The committee believes that cooperation with Israel,
one of America's closest allies, remains one of the most
important defense relationships.
The committee also notes that the increase it is
recommending above the President's request is significant. The
committee believes that the Director, MDA should, when working
with Israel on the expenditure of these funds, ensure that
there is minimal program risk posed by any acceleration of
program knowledge points through this recommended funding
increase.
The committee also recommends a provision elsewhere in this
section that would provide a significant authorization of funds
for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
Medical Countermeasures Advanced Development and Manufacturing
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is pursuing a medical countermeasure capability to rapidly
counter known and unknown chemical, biological, radiological,
and nuclear threats, including novel and previously
unrecognized, naturally occurring infectious diseases. The
committee understands that this program will provide a
dedicated, flexible, adaptive, and scalable advanced
development manufacturing Center of Excellence to meet DOD
requirements in this critical area.
While aware of the unique requirements for the Department
and the need to have a program serving those distinct
requirements, the committee remains concerned that costly
duplication and inefficiencies exist in the area of bio-defense
across Federal agencies, as detailed in the recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-11-318SP)
``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue,'' which noted
that Federal agencies are unable to account for bio-defense
spending across the entire Federal Government.
The committee encourages continual and effective
interagency coordination, in particular between the Department
of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, and
the continued utilization of the ``Integrated Portfolio for
Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Medical
Countermeasures'' as a forum to reduce duplication, realize
efficiencies, and save tax dollars. The committee also
encourages close integration and coordination between the
medical countermeasure enterprise and the broader Joint Program
Office for Chemical-Biological Defense to ensure efficiencies
are realized, requirements are properly identified, and
capabilities are rapidly fielded in the area of medical
countermeasures, including the potential merging of Joint
Program Management offices dealing with Transformational
Medical Technologies, and Chemical, Biological Medical Systems.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
outlining efforts to implement a strategic plan for all
Departmental medical countermeasures activities, including
Advanced Development and Manufacturing, Transformational
Medical Technologies Initiative, the Medical Countermeasure
Initiative, and similar activities designed to produce a
medical countermeasure capability that will rapidly counter
known and unknown chemical, biological, radiological and
nuclear threats. The briefing should also include an overview
of how these medical efforts and initiatives will be managed
and balanced within the broader Chemical-Biological Defense
Program to ensure that all Joint Service requirements are met
including chemical and other non-medical programs.
Medium Extended Altitude Defense System
The budget request contained $400.9 million in PE 64869A
for the Medium Extended Altitude Defense System (MEADS).
The committee is concerned that it does not have a complete
picture of all MEADS-related expenses. The committee is aware
that the MEADS agreement committed the United States to a total
cost of $2.4 billion, but budget documents suggest the United
States may have expended, or be planning to expend, in excess
of $3.0 billion. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by May 31, 2012, on all MEADS and MEADS-related
expenses incurred, or planned, by the United States.
The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $400.9
million, in PE 64869A for MEADS. Elsewhere in this title, the
committee includes a provision in which the committee details
its concerns with MEADS and its rationale for authorizing no
funds for the program in fiscal year 2013.
Mitochondrial Research
The committee recognizes that many service members
returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
potentially have some form of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and
that they may represent a larger proportion of U.S. casualties
than those sustained in other recent conflicts. The committee
notes that there is a growing body of research indicating that
TBI-related impairments may be the result of damage to human
cell mitochondria sustained during and following a blast event.
The committee notes that researchers believe that an enhanced
understanding of post-injury mitochondria may help target
therapeutic interventions, potentially delaying or preventing
additional impairment or disability. In order to support and
potentially enhance the treatment of TBI-related injuries,
including the long-term impact on veteran's physical and mental
health, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to
explore further medical research into the mitochondrial
linkages to TBI effects through its various medical research
entities across the services.
Modeling and Simulation for Cyber
The committee is aware that poor software programming is a
major contributor to critical vulnerabilities in many software-
intensive systems. The committee is also aware that efforts
exist to improve software coding best practices, including
through the adoption of best practices in the curricula of
major computer science programs. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to accelerate efforts under way to
conduct secure software coding experiments and data analysis to
determine which secure coding guidelines are practiced and
effective, and to develop a template for scalable cyber
modeling and simulation. The committee believes such templates
are necessary to improve understanding of the cyber threat,
improve mitigation efforts, increase the military's ability to
fight and survive during cyberattacks, measure the state of
cybersecurity, and explore and exploit new ideas in cyber
warfare.
Modeling and Simulation Grand Challenges
The committee recognizes the value of modeling and
simulation (M&S) to a wide range of activities within the
Department of Defense. The committee believes that the
Department could do more to harness the entrepreneurial and
innovative spirit of industry, academia and the organic
research and engineering resources of the Department to
facilitate progress in the state of the art for M&S. The
committee recognizes that the issuance of grand challenges have
been effective in other areas, such as the Grand, Urban and
Balloon Challenges of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency. The committee encourages the Department to develop and
promulgate a set of M&S Grand Challenges for the research
community that would support increased interagency
coordination; improved efficiency and interoperability of
specific M&S tools, as well as to replace, improve, or provide
efficiencies to existing activities of the Department;
reinvigorated use of simulation-based acquisition as an
enterprise-wide strategy, including the use of modeling and
simulation for performing analyses of alternatives for major
defense acquisition programs; lowering the operations and
support costs of the Department; and supporting risk mitigation
activities.
National Defense Education Program
The budget request contained $90.0 million in Program
Element (PE) 61120D8Z for the national defense education
program (NDEP).
The committee is aware that the Office of the Secretary of
Defense supports some K-12 science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) educational activities through NDEP, as
well as other programs to support undergraduate and
postgraduate fellowships. The committee recognizes STEM as a
critical capability for the Department, not just in providing a
pipeline of scientists and engineers for developing new
capabilities, but also for acquisition professionals and
policy-makers that should educate consumers when they make
decisions about funding or pursuing new technologies. The
committee further emphasizes the Department's growing need for
a technically skilled workforce in all positions, particularly
its enlisted personnel. A recent Council on Foreign Relations
titled U.S. Education Reform and National Security, stated the
U.S. ``shortage of skilled human capital both inflates
personnel costs and strains the military's ability to develop
and deploy technologies that can deter sophisticated
adversaries.'' It further states ``Many U.S. generals caution
that too many new enlistees cannot read training manuals for
technologically sophisticated equipment. A former head of the
Army's Training and Doctrine Command said that the lack of
fully qualified young people was `an imminent and menacing
threat to our national security.'''
The committee notes that some research indicates that
achieving certain math skills by the eighth grade is a critical
determinant for success in STEM fields. For that reason, the
committee believes that it is important for the Department to
support K-12 STEM programs, as that supports an increased
pipeline of qualified individuals that may pursue university
degrees in STEM fields. The committee believes that K-12 STEM
programs are a long-term investment for the Department, and
should protect these investments even in a time of increased
pressure on the Department's budget. The committee also
believes that as the Department considers investments in K-12
STEM, it should ensure that these programs are tied to a
comprehensive Department-wide strategy, and are thoroughly
coordinated with other similar federal programs to avoid
duplicative and conflicting efforts.
The committee recommends $90.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 61120D8Z for the national defense education
program.
National Defense University Research Program
The committee is aware that the fundamental purpose of the
National Defense University (NDU) is to provide rigorous joint
professional military education to members of the U.S. Armed
Forces, selected United States civilians, and international
partners. NDU performs research in support of the national
security strategy and national military strategy development
needs of the Department, which the committee believes are key
ingredients in preparing military and civilian leaders from the
United States and other countries to evaluate national and
international security challenges.
The committee notes that during the past two years NDU has
undertaken a major realignment of its research activities to
create opportunities for stronger leadership, new efficiencies,
a more coherent research organization, a surge in world-class
researchers, better cooperation between educators and
researchers, and more effective outreach. The committee
believes the alignment of research and education with practice
is critical to developing the necessary leaders of the future.
The committee encourages continuing support and stable funding
for NDU's research activities to attract the world-class
researchers and support the fundamental strategic and
technology policy research necessary to create the national
security leaders of the future.
Non-Lethal Weapons and Irregular Warfare
The committee reaffirms its long-standing support for the
rapid development and fielding of non-lethal weapons
technologies and capabilities, which have broad applicability
across a wide range of military operations. As an important
adjunct to lethal force, these capabilities can be useful in
implementing the military strategy highlighted in the
Department of Defense's strategic guidance document most
notably within the area of irregular warfare. The committee
reiterates its belief that non-lethal directed energy
technologies and systems show great promise and encourages the
Department to more actively pursue these capabilities. The
committee also believes the transition to the military services
for deployment of technologically-mature non-lethal weapons
programs must be accelerated. The committee encourages the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, as Executive Agent for the
Department's Non-Lethal Weapons Program, to facilitate military
service integration of non-lethal weapons capabilities into the
total force when appropriate and to ensure their effective use
as appropriate in future contingency operations and irregular
warfare.
Phoenix Program
The budget request included $159.7 million in PE 63287E for
space programs and technology. Of this amount, $28.0 million
was requested for the Phoenix program.
The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency is developing a program allowing the Department
of Defense to work with existing satellite owners to leverage
high-value, long-life components on existing satellites in
geosynchronous orbit once they are no longer operational.
Utilizing commercial capability to send small packaged systems
into geosynchronous orbit, this program would allow for
upgrading, fixing, repairing, and enhancing serviceable
components. The committee is aware that there are a number of
technical challenges, such as transportation and orbital
maneuvering, robotic systems and integration, and
extravehicular tool requirements. However, the committee
believes that this program could revolutionize the utilization
of space assets, if successful.
The committee recommends $159.7 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63287E for space programs and technology,
including $28.0 million for the Phoenix program.
Physical Barrier Protection
The committee is aware that the expeditionary nature of
military forces requires the capability to provide rapidly
deployable physical security barriers that can provide
ballistic and blast protection in austere environments. The
committee recognizes that there are a number of commercially
available products that provide some capability, but that the
Department of Defense has also invested in developing and
testing new physical security barrier systems with improved
capability. The committee is concerned that the Department has
not made adequate use of these improved systems, particularly
in austere and restricted environments. The committee urges the
Department to take all practical measures to ensure that the
most suitable physical protection systems are made available to
the warfighter.
Plan for Testing of the Missile Defense Systems Against Accidental or
Unauthorized Launches Originating from the Russian Federation
or the People's Republic of China
The committee is aware that it is the current policy of the
United States, as enacted in the National Missile Defense Act
of 1999 (Public Law 106-38), that the United States ``deploy as
soon as is technologically possible an effective National
Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of
the United States against limited ballistic missile attack
whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate.''
The committee applauds the Commander, U.S. Northern Command
for the diligence with which his command exercises against the
many ballistic missile threats to the United States. The
committee is, however, concerned that the threat of accidental
or unauthorized launches has not received adequate attention.
The committee therefore directs the Commander, U.S.
Northern Command to prepare and submit a plan to the
congressional defense committees within 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act for testing the national missile
defense system against the unauthorized or accidental launch of
a ballistic missile against the United States by states other
than rogue regimes, specifically, the Islamic Republic of Iran
or People's Democratic Republic of Korea, including an
accidental or unauthorized launch of a missile by the Russian
Federation or the People's Republic of China. The committee
further directs the Commander to brief the congressional
defense committees on the results of the plan.
Potential Threats Posed by Open Source Publication of Medical Research
The committee believes that advanced scientific research on
extremely dangerous pathogens and toxins, such as Avian
influenza virus, anthrax, and Ebola virus, is vital to the
ongoing study of these agents' nature and how to safeguard
military and civilian populations from them. The committee also
understands that the complex nature of this research requires
the scientific community to share its findings and research as
widely as possible in a collaborative environment that includes
public and private entities in order to maximize the potential
for scientific advancements. However, the committee is
concerned that in the hands of malignant actors, this research
combined with readily available commercial, scientific, and
medical technology, could be used to produce biological weapons
for use against the very populations the research was intended
to protect.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
that describes the potential threats posed by the open
publication of this advanced research, and steps that the
Department could take to assist the interagency effort to
mitigate these threats.
Precision Tracking Space System
The budget request contained $297.4 million in PE 64883C
for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS); the future
years defense plans for fiscal year 2013 to 2017 includes
$1.530 billion.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has articulated concerns in its annual report on
missile defense acquisition specifically about PTSS. The
committee also notes that the GAO highlighted that the
projected cost and size of the PTSS constellation is not yet
known, making it impossible to conduct a true analysis of
alternatives. Further, GAO noted that the acquisition strategy
and timelines for the first PTSS satellites reaching orbit adds
risk to the system, as do many of the technologies involved,
many of which have never been integrated together.
Additionally, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee was briefed
recently by the National Academies on the final report of its
study, mandated by section 232 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which
recommended cancelling the PTSS altogether.
The committee is concerned that PTSS, which was intended to
have most of the capabilities but much less of the cost than
the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS), may wind up
having almost all of the cost of that system but much less of
the capability. Further, the committee notes that there is no
consensus as to what, exactly, PTSS would contribute to the
defense of the United States, with some believing that PTSS
offers great capability including tracking and the potential
for discrimination capability, and others stating it is not-
optimally designed for that mission and recommending other
options for sensor coverage that may be more cost-effective.
Lastly, the committee notes that systems with discrimination
capability are the most useful to the defense of the United
States.
The committee believes that an independent analysis of
alternatives may conclude that there are less expensive and
just as effective, if not more effective, means of providing
added sensor coverage to the defense of the United States.
Elsewhere in this title the committee has directed actions
which could further inform that judgment.
The committee recommends $50.0 million in PE 64883C, a
decrease of $247.4 million, for the Precision Tracking Space
System.
Production of Critical Materials for Protection Against Chemical,
Biological, and Radiological Agents
The committee recognizes the need for an adequate supply of
materials to protect warfighters, first responders, and
citizens from exposure to chemical, biological, and
radiological agents. These materials are critical to assuring
the mission effectiveness of U.S. forces to respond to domestic
and international crises. Therefore, the committee encourages
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and
Industrial Base Policy, through the Defense Production Act--
Title III program, to examine the industrial base capacity in
this area and determine if additional sourcing is needed to
ensure sufficient supply to meet current and projected needs.
Rapid Innovation Fund
The budget request contained no funding in PE 64775D8Z for
the defense rapid innovation program, known as the Rapid
Innovation Fund (RIF) program.
The Rapid Innovation Fund was created by Congress in the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383) in order to stimulate innovative
technologies, reduce acquisition and lifecycle costs, address
technical risks, improve the timeliness and thoroughness of
test and evaluation outcomes, and rapidly insert such products
directly in support of primarily major defense acquisition
programs. The committee recognizes that the Department of
Defense (DOD) has had some delays in receiving the funding, in
part due to an extended continuing budget resolution at the
beginning of fiscal year 2011. Despite those issues, the
committee is aware that the DOD has made great progress in
implementing a competitive process that has received over 3,500
proposals, and has been successful at attracting many new, non-
traditional businesses to Department of Defense research. The
committee continues to support the goals of this program, and
encourages the Department to increase the reach and
effectiveness of RIF. For example, the committee believes the
Department should engage a broader spectrum of stakeholders in
the requirements generation and evaluation process, such as the
geographic and functional combatant commands, the Defense
Information Systems Agency, and the Test Resource Management
Center. The committee also recommends that future broad area
announcements, and subsequent proposal evaluation, should
assess business readiness, test and evaluation needs, and DOD
technology insertion support to ensure best value proposals and
successful project outcomes.
The committee recommends $200.0 million, an increase of
$200.0 million, in PE 64775D8Z for the RIF program.
Report by Secretary of Defense on SM-3 IIB Missile
The committee believes the SM-3 IIB interceptor that is
being developed by the Missile Defense Agency, should be
capable of providing missile defense coverage to the
continental United States from locations in Europe.
The Committee directs the Secretary to report within 90
days on how the SM-3 IIB interceptor in design and development
will provide missile defense coverage to the continental United
States from locations in Europe. Such report shall be
unclassified, with a classified annex as necessary.
Report on Fragility in the Missile Defense Industrial Base
The committee is concerned about the impact of budget cuts
on the missile defense industrial base, as it is concerned
about the overall defense industrial base. In testimony before
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on the fiscal year 2013
budget request for missile defense, the Director, Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) stated: ``If we have sequestration and the
dramatic reduction in our programs, it will be most--hardest-
felt in the supplier base. And it's not only the availability
of the supplies, as we were discussing before, it's the
manufacturing processes. And, a lot of these components that we
use, and we use over 2,000, for example, on a ground-based
interceptor, those components themselves are built in a certain
way that give it its reliability. And, the loss of the
workforce in many of these cases I would say would be close to
non-recoverable. Or, if it is recoverable, it's going to be a
very painful process.''
The committee is also aware that there are certain
components with only one or two suppliers remaining in that
area of design and production. This is especially true for the
producers of the Standard Missile 3 interceptor's Divert and
Attitude Control System which guides the kill vehicle during
the final phase of its intercept operations. The committee is
deeply concerned about the absence of competition in the design
and production of key missile defense technologies.
The committee therefore directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to provide a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services within 180 days that details the key components
in major MDA missile defense systems and the extent to which
there is a risk of relying on only a single supplier for those
components. The report should include any specific efforts MDA
has undertaken in the past 2 years to ensure competition in the
industry supplier base for those components and any efforts the
MDA plans to inform a strategy to deal with the risks of
reliance on a single supplier for critical missile defense
technologies in the years ahead. In addition, the committee
urges the Missile Defense Agency to provide as part of the
fiscal year 2014 budget request a plan on how it intends to
implement the strategy.
Report on Space-Based Interceptors
The committee remains concerned that the full potential of
ballistic missile technology is not being realized,
particularly in space-based interceptor technology. The
committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should pursue
effective space-based interceptor technology to defend against
long-range ballistic missile threats.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the defense committees of Congress
examining the technical and operational considerations
associated with developing and operating a limited space-based
interceptor capability. Within 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the report should include the following:
(A) the identification of the technical risks, gaps,
and constraints associated with the development and
operational of such a capability;
(B) an assessment of the maturity levels of various
technologies needed to develop and operate such a
capability;
(C) the key knowledge, research, and testing that
would be needed for any nation to develop and operate
an effective space-based interceptor capability; and
(D) the estimated effectiveness and cost of potential
options for developing and operating such a capability,
including their effectiveness in conjunction with
existing and planned terrestrially-based missile
defense systems
Furthermore, the committee believes that the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency should establish a space-based
interceptor program office to begin technology and engineering
development activities. This program office should serve as the
single-point of contact vis-a-vis space-based interceptor
technology. The committee directs the Director to seek funding
for such an office in the fiscal year 2014 budget request for
the Missile Defense Agency.
Report on U.S. European Phased Adaptive Approach Spending and U.S.
Export Controls
The committee is concerned that U.S. funds may have been
expended in a contract with a firm currently under
investigation for violation of the U.S. International
Trafficking in Arms Regulations. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by August 1, 2012, on whether
any U.S. Department of Defense funds have been used, directly
or indirectly, to obtain missile defense command and control
systems from a contractor that is under investigation, per the
most recent Blue Lantern report, for violation of U.S.
International Trafficking in Arms Regulations. If U.S. funds
were expended in a contract involving an entity currently under
investigation for violating U.S. export control laws, the
Secretary is directed to include in the report an explanation
of why that company was allowed to receive such U.S. funds and
when the U.S. funds were provided to the contractor that is
under investigation.
Risk Mitigation for Enterprise Resource Planning Systems
The committee is aware of the challenges associated with
implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. The
committee is concerned that delays in implementing ERP systems
places a significant financial burden on the Department of
Defense and could jeopardize achievement of financial
auditability goals. The Panel on Defense Financial Management
and Auditability Reform also expressed concern that some ERPs
do not function as intended, forcing the Department and the
military services to rely on sustaining costly legacy systems
and manual processes. Consequently, the committee believes that
the Department should establish risk mitigation plans to
address actual and potential deficiencies associated with the
development, implementation, or utilization of its ERP systems
that could affect the achievement of Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness (FIAR) goals.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
that includes a risk mitigation plan for each ERP being
developed by the Department of Defense and the military
services, including how best to integrate the experience and
expertise of the industry product provider at each stage of
implementation and mitigation. At a minimum, each risk
mitigation plan should:
(1) Identify measures for resolving any such
weaknesses or deficiencies;
(2) Assign responsibilities within the Department to
implement such measures;
(3) Specify implementation steps for such measures;
(4) Provide timeframes for implementing such
measures; and
(5) Identify any alternative arrangements outside of
the ERP environment that may be necessary for meeting
FIAR objectives.
Sea-Based X-Band Radar
The budget request contained $9.7 million in PE 63907C for
the sea-based X-band (SBX) radar.
However, the committee is concerned that this request is
not sufficient to maintain the deployment of the SBX to add
sensor coverage to the defense of the United States for an
extended period of time. For example, the committee is aware
that the SBX radar has recently been deployed to support U.S.
missile defense against People's Democratic Republic of Korea's
pledged ballistic missile test, yet there is no funding source
to support such a deployment. The committee is aware that the
Missile Defense Agency is planning to pay for these and other
SBX expenses by taking fiscal year 2012 appropriated funds and
the request for fiscal year 2013.
The committee directs the Director, Missile Defense Agency
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by
June 15, 2012, on the costs of the deployment of the SBX radar
to support U.S. operations vis-a-vis North Korea's April 2012
ballistic missile launch, and to provide an annual budget
estimate for maintaining the SBX radar in a status such that it
can be deployed in less than 14 days notice and for a period of
at least 60 days per year. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee
includes a provision that would require the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to ensure a deployment capability for the SBX.
The committee recommends $9.7 million, the full amount of
requested, in PE 63907C for the SBX radar.
SM-3 IB Missile
The committee is concerned by the recent failure of the SM-
3 IB missile's first test, which the committee approved $565
million in procurement funding last year to procure 42
interceptors. The committee notes that the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) has planned three more flight tests in fiscal year
2012 to prove out the SM-3 IB missile, along with two
additional flight tests in fiscal year 2013 prior to
authorization to begin procurement activities.
The committee is very supportive of the more capable IB
interceptor being available for the ballistic missile defense
system upon the completion of appropriate testing. The
committee is aware that the IB missile is a necessary component
of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense,
specifically phase II, and that other combatant commanders are
planning to have this interceptor available for their missile
defense requirements.
The committee is also aware that as the MDA is attempting
to resolve problems with the IB, it is also attempting to
complete development of the IIA missile and review design
proposals of the IIB missile. The committee urges MDA to ensure
adequate focus to the sequence of these development efforts,
especially in a time of constrained budgets.
SM-3 IIA Development
The budget request contained $399.3 million in PE 64881C
for the SM-3 Block IIA co-development program.
The committee notes that the President's budget request is
intended to maintain the U.S. commitment with Japan to meet the
planned 2018 Initial Operating Capability (IOC) and the
deployment of Phase III of the European Phased Adaptive
Approach to missile defense. The committee understands that
procurement will commence in fiscal year 2017 with 12 rounds.
The committee recommends $399.3 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64881 for the SM-3 Block IIA co-development
program.
SM-3 IIB Missile
The budget request contained $212.7 million in PE 63902C
for the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) IIB missile defense
interceptor, and $1913.3 million over the course of the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for fiscal years 2013-2017. The
committee supports the request for fiscal year 2013.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office expressed several concerns about the SM-3 IIB missile
development path in its annual report on missile defense
acquisition; the committee addresses these concerns in another
section of this report.
The committee is aware that the Defense Science Board and
the National Academies have all noted the technical challenges
with the IIB missile in terms of how it will, or will not, be
able to perform the mission for which it is intended. The
committee is aware that one recent report has recommended the
termination of Phase IV of the European Phased Adaptive
Approach, which would include the deployment of the SM-3 IIB
and the Precision Tracking Space System. The committee is not
ready to support that recommendation at this time. The
committee is however deeply concerned about the $1.9 billion
dollars programmed for the IIB missile in the FYDP. The
committee considers that such investment may not be justified
if the interceptor concept ultimately selected in fiscal year
2012 is only modestly more capable than the IIA missile.
U.S. Missile Defense Data Sharing with Israel
The committee supports the close ties between the missile
defense programs of the State of Israel and the United States.
The committee strongly believes such cooperation should
continue. This cooperation should continue to include the
sharing of missile defense data as is appropriate, to further
U.S. national security goals, such as exists with the U.S. AN/
TPY-2 radar currently deployed in Israel. Such data sharing,
when appropriate, should also include data derived from the
U.S. European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense and
the North American Treaty Organization theater missile defense
system, of which the EPAA is a U.S. contribution.
The committee is therefore concerned that senior NATO
leadership had suggested data will not be shared with Israel, a
key U.S. ally. The committee directs the Secretary to provide
verification to the congressional defense committees and the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs within 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act that there are no
international barriers to sharing with Israel any missile
defense data derived from U.S. systems when the United States
determines that the sharing of such data would further U.S.
national security goals.
U.S. Northern Command Report on Plan to Enhance Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense Reliability and Discrimination and Change Shot Doctrine
The committee has received testimony by the Director,
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and a classified briefing by the
Institute for Defense Analyses on the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense (GMD) system shot doctrine. The committee understands
that MDA and the Department of Defense are planning for
significant changes to the shot doctrine of the GMD system.
The committee is aware that the Commander, U.S. Northern
Command is responsible for the GMD shot doctrine. The committee
directs that the Commander, U.S. Northern Command to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by November 1,
2012, on the MDA shot doctrine strategy for the GMD, including
the plan submitted in MDA's budget documents for fiscal year
2013 that details the Commander's views on the strategy. The
report should also include the metrics concerning GMD
reliability and discrimination that will be used when deciding
whether and how to revise the shot doctrine for the GMD system.
Use of Bone Samples in Research
The committee is aware that the military depends on the
research and study of collections of human bones to develop
novel military body armor and helmets, amputation therapies,
joint replacements, and remains-identification techniques,
among other uses. The current collection most often utilized by
the Department of Defense (DOD) often has a significant delay
to conduct the necessary research. The collection also lacks
sufficient diversity in size, age, ethnicity and other
characteristics to reflect today's warfighters. Therefore, the
committee encourages DOD to utilize additional publicly
available, larger, and more demographically diverse bone
collections when conducting its research and study.
Vertical Lift Platform Technologies
Two and a half years ago the Department of Defense
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics leadership asked Industry
to self-form into the ``Vertical Lift Consortium'' (VLC). The
Department established an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)
with the VLC to more effectively define requirements,
streamline development, flight demonstrate innovative Vertical
Lift technologies and accelerate transition to the Warfighter
at lower risk and cost. The VLC is an open and competitive
forum that leverages all sectors of the Vertical Lift Community
to encourage teaming of innovative small business and non-
traditional contractors with major defense firms and academia.
The Committee supports the Department's engagement with the
VLC to obtain input on future vertical lift technology
requirements, methods and development strategies for next-
generation vertical lift aircraft. The committee directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to submit a report to the Congressional Defense
Committees not later than March 15, 2013 providing the status
of this initiative and, taking into consideration input from
the VLC, recommend acquisition approaches for rapid and
affordable flight demonstration of innovative Vertical Lift X-
planes, including novel acquisition methods such as competitive
prize awards that have been successfully applied in other
fields.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Defeat Technologies
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
WMD threats. The committee supports the development of
personnel protection equipment to include digital dosimeter
radiation technologies and other lightweight portable detectors
capable of identifying discrete quantities across the widest-
spectrum of WMD threats for U.S. Special Operations Forces and
general purpose forces. The committee is particularly
interested in these technical and operational capabilities
because the national intelligence community continues to assess
credible threats posed by terrorist groups, states, and state-
sponsored entities to acquire and weaponize WMD material for
use against the United States and its allies. The committee
therefore encourages DTRA to continue development of innovative
and emerging detection and threat identification technologies
and to ensure prompt transition of validated capabilities to
address national security requirements.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $185.3 million for operational
test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $220.3
million, an increase of $35.0 million, in the requested amount
for fiscal year 2013.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2013
operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified
in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Testing of Information System Controls
The committee is aware of the problems challenging many
enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. The committee's
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform
noted that a common problem for these programs was that testing
for logical security controls, which should occur early in the
developmental process, was typically prioritized after
functionality testing, and tended only to occur at the end of
the developmental process. The committee believes that the
Department of Defense (DOD) should continue to subject its
systems, whether legacy systems or ERPs, to information system
controls testing. The committee also believes that the
Department should place priority on this testing and ensure
that sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled personnel
exist within the test and evaluation community.
Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Chief
Management Officer for the Department of Defense, in
coordination with the Director for Operational Test and
Evaluation and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Developmental Test and Evaluation, to provide a briefing to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services within 120 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act that assesses the information system control
testing needs for all ERPs being developed by the Department of
Defense. The briefing should also determine whether appropriate
workforce levels and corresponding skill sets exist within the
Department's developmental and operational test communities,
and how best to integrate the experience and expertise of the
industry product provider during testing and implementation.
The briefing should also describe what actions the Department
is taking to address any identified shortfalls.
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--Next-Generation Long-Range Strike Bomber Aircraft Nuclear
Certification Requirement
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to make certain that the new long-range strike bomber will be
capable of using strategic weapons by the date it receives
declaration of initial operational capability (IOC), and
nuclear certified to use strategic weapons no later than two
years after declaration of IOC.
Section 212--Unmanned Combat Air System
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
conduct additional risk reduction activities related to the
technology development of the follow-on Unmanned Carrier-
launched Surveillance and Strike system.
Section 213--Extension of Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike System Program
This section would amend section 213 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) and would preclude the Secretary of the Navy from
obligating 25 percent of appropriated funds until the reporting
and certification requirements of section 213 are met. This
section would also prevent the Secretary of the Navy from
``down-selecting'' to less than two prime contract competitors
prior to the critical design review milestone for the program.
Section 214--Limitation on availability of funds for future manned
ground moving target indicator capability of the Air Force
This section would restrict the obligation and expenditure
of Air Force research, development, test and evaluation funds
for any activity, including pre-milestone A activities, to
initiate a new start acquisition program to provide the Air
Force with a manned ground moving target capability or manned
dismount moving target capability until a period of 90 days has
elapsed following the date on which the Secretary of the Air
Force submits a report on the plan for manned future ground
moving target and manned dismount moving target indicator
capabilities of the Air Force. The report required in this
section would include: the plan to maintain onboard command and
control capability that is equal or better than such capability
provided by the E-8C joint surveillance target attack radar
program; each analysis of alternatives completed during fiscal
year 2012 regarding future manned ground moving target
indicator capability or manned dismount moving target indicator
capability; an analysis of each alternative considered,
including cost and a description of how such programs would
affect the potential growth of future manned ground moving
target indicator capability or manned dismount moving target
indicator capability; a description of potential operational
and sustainment cost savings realized by the Air Force using a
platform that is derived from a commercial aircraft and in
operation by the Department of Defense as of the date of the
report; the plan by the Secretary of Defense to retire or
replace E-8C joint surveillance target attack radar aircraft;
and any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate. This
section would permit the Secretary to waive the restriction on
the obligation and expenditure of funds for this purpose if the
Secretary determines such a waiver is required to meet an
urgent operational need or other emergency contingency
requirement directly related to ongoing combat operations, and
notifies the congressional defense committees of such
determination.
Section 215--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Milestone A
Activities for the MQ-18 Unmanned Aircraft System
This section would limit the use of funds for milestone A
activities for the MQ-18 Medium Range Multi-Purpose Vertical
Take-off and Landing Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) until the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council certifies
that the MQ-18 UAS is required to meet a capability in the
Department of Defense manned and unmanned medium-altitude
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance force structure
and that an existing UAS cannot meet the required capability or
be modified to meet the required capability. This section would
also define milestone A as the distribution of request for
proposals, selection of technology demonstration contractors,
and/or technology development.
Section 216--Vertical Lift Platform Technology Demonstrations
This section would authorize a program to develop and
flight-demonstrate vertical lift technologies.
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
Section 221--Procurement of AN/TPY-2 Radars
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
acquire two additional AN/TPY-2 radar radars, one of which is
requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget request and one
additional radar in fiscal year 2013. The committee is aware
there are significant budget efficiencies to procuring two
radars as opposed to one. Therefore, the committee recommend
the full amount of the budget request of $217.2 million in
fiscal year 2013 for PE 28866C, Procurement, Defense Wide,
Missile Defense Agency, and it recommends an additional $170.0
million for the procurement of the second radar in fiscal year
2013. The committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2013
budget submission and the associated Future Years Defense
Program recommend reducing the acquisition of the AN/TPY-2
radar by 6 units to only 12 radar units.
The committee is not aware of any decrease in combatant
commander requirements for these radars, and, in fact, it is
concerned that this reduction in acquisition may force
combatant commanders to take undesirable risks in trading off
deployments of these radars, which are key to regional and
homeland missile defense. The committee is concerned that the
Department and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is relying too
heavily on the MDA's Precision Tracking Space System concept, a
concept which the committee expresses its concerns elsewhere in
this report.
The committee also believes that it may be possible to
better utilize the current TPY-2 system. To that end, this
section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study the utility, costs, and risks of mounting the TPY-2 radar
on a rotational table allowing for it to rapidly change
direction of the radar array.
Section 222--Development of Advanced Kill Vehicle
The section would require that the Director, Missile
Defense Agency submit a plan within 180 days after the date of
the enactment of the Act to ensure that the kill vehicle for
the Next Generation Aegis Missile can be adapted to also serve
as an improved kill vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense System. The committee also believes that for this
purpose, the Director should provide a description of the
technology of and concept behind applying the former Multiple
Kill Vehicle proposal to the Next Generation Kill Vehicle,
which was terminated in the budget request for fiscal year
2010.
The committee believes this plan is consistent with the
recommendation of the National Academies' Assessment of
Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in
Comparison to Other Alternatives, which was conducted pursuant
to the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
Section 223--Missile Defense Site on the East Coast
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an environmental impact statement by December 31, 2013,
on possible locations on the East Coast of the United States
for the deployment of a missile defense site.
This section would also require the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to develop a plan for the deployment of an East
Coast site to be operational not later than the end of 2015;
the plan would evaluate the use of two-stage and three-stage
ground-based interceptors, as well as the SM-3 block IA, block
IB, and later blocks of the SM-3 missile. This section would
require the plan to be included in the fiscal year 2014 budget
submission, but it would also authorize $100.0 million in PE
63882C in fiscal year 2013 to be available 30 days after the
plan is presented to the congressional defense committees.
The section would also add criteria for the selection of
the location of the missile defense site on the East Coast of
the United States.
The committee is aware that a cost effective missile
defense site located on the East Coast of the United States
could have advantages for the defense of the United States from
ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East. The committee
is also aware that several reviews, including studies by the
Commander, U.S. Northern Command in 2007-08 (which do not
reflect current command recommendations in view of the 2010
Ballistic Missile Defense Review), the Institute for Defense
Analyses, and the National Academies have all examined the
potential contribution of an East Coast missile defense site,
and certain of these studies have recommended that work begin
on the development and deployment of such a site. The committee
encourages the Department to provide to the defense committees
an interim analysis on feasibility and cost no later than
February 1, 2013.
Section 224--Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
The section would authorize a total of $1.26 billion for PE
63882C for fiscal year 2013.
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to begin the upgrade of the six silos in Missile
Field 1, which the fiscal year 2013 budget request recommends
be shut down and moved to a near-mothball status, and complete
it so that it is in operationally ready status within 3 years;
this recommendation is consistent with the Administration's
policy to be ``well hedged'' against the possibility that new
threats may emerge. This section would also require the funds
provided in this section be spent to complete the refurbishment
of the CE1 GMD interceptor fleet to improve reliability.
Section 225--Ground-based Midcourse Defense Interceptor Test
The section would require the Director, Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) to undertake an intercept test, using an
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) class target, of the
ground-based midcourse defense system (GMD) using a CE1
interceptor, which has been successfully tested three out of
three times, though not against an intercontinental ballistic
missile target, by the end of calendar year 2013. The committee
is concerned that under current MDA plans, the GMD system won't
be tested against an ICBM until the fourth quarter of 2015. The
committee believes that the pace of the growth of ICBM threats
to the United States requires the GMD system be tested sooner
than current MDA plans.
Section 226--Deployment of SM-3 IIB Interceptors on Land and Sea
This section would express the sense of the Congress that
the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) IIB missile defense interceptors
should be deployed at initial deployment, currently planned for
2020, in a land-based and sea-based mode. This provision would
also require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on
the implications for the force structure of the Navy if the SM-
3 IIB cannot fit in the standard Vertical Launching System
configuration for the Aegis BMD system, including the effect on
Navy ship deployments, cost, and overall magazine depth to
respond to missile raids. This section would also require that
the report include an explanation if the interceptors cannot be
deployed in a sea-based mode at initial deployment, including
cost and force structure requirements, related to the use of
the IIB missile for the defense of the United States from
threats originating in the Pacific region.
Section 227--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program
This section would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron
Dome system in fiscal years 2012-15 in PE 63913C for
procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for
operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also
require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish
within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense
efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation
on this program.
The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0
million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for
the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome
system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets
launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if
the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S.
taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0
million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no
rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the
Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680
million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate
rights to this technology for United States defense purposes,
subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense
Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.-
Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's
Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the
Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-
production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the
significant U.S. investment in this system.
Section 228--Sea-Based X-Band Radar
This section would require the Director, Missile Defense
Agency to ensure that the sea-based X-band (SBX) radar is
maintained in a status such that the radar may be deployed in
less than 14 days and for at least 60 days each year.
Section 229--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the MEADS Program
This section would prohibit the Department from obligating
any funding on the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
program.
The committee notes the that in the conference report (H.
Rept. 112-329) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees limited the
availability of more than 25 percent of fiscal year 2012 funds
for MEADS until the Secretary of Defense submits a plan to use
such funds as final obligations under the MEADS program for
either: (1) implementing a restructured MEADS program of
reduced scope; or (2) contract termination liability costs with
respect to the contracts covering the program. The committee
believes there should have been no confusion regarding the
meaning of ``final obligations.''
The committee further finds that the Department of Defense
has not yet submitted the reports required by section 235 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81). The committee believes this report, when
submitted, will offer useful direction for the Patriot
Improvement Program, which is referenced elsewhere in this
report.
Additionally, the Government Accountability Office has
reported to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services in its recent selected
acquisition report that there may in fact be continuing MEADS
expenses for the United States for several years beyond fiscal
year 2013, which would be inconsistent with budget briefings
provided to the committee by the Department.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
now engaging, at the senior most levels, with representatives
of Germany and Italy concerning this program. The committee
believes such senior level attention earlier in the course of
this program might have saved the taxpayers significant
expenditure of dollars.
The committee further understands from the Department that
the Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic have
made clear they will not work with the United States to further
adjust the terms of the MEADS program, believing they have a
deal with the United States and having made their required
contributions to the program. The committee urges the
Department to remind the representatives of Germany and Italy
that only Congress can commit the United States to the
expenditure of taxpayer funds.
Section 230--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Phased, Adaptive
Approach to Missile Defense in Europe
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to jointly submit a plan to the
congressional defense committees on cost-sharing with the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) the expenses of the fixed
European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) assets, including the
Aegis Ashore sites and the forward-deployed AN/TPY-2 radar. The
committee believes other expenses should also be included,
though it notes it has not received a complete explanation from
the Department of all of the U.S. capabilities that will be
available to support the EPAA. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a NATO pre-financing request
for the expenses of this missile defense equipment, as is
required for EPAA military construction expenses elsewhere in
this bill. This section would limit the obligation or
expenditure of 25 percent of the costs of the specified EPAA
expenses for missile defense equipment until NATO responds to
the U.S. pre-financing request. Mindful of the highly ambitious
timelines for deployment of the EPAA and the rising long-range
missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran, this section
would provide the President a waiver if he determines the use
of that authority is vital to the national security of the
United States.
The committee is aware that the Administration decided that
the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense should
be a U.S. contribution to NATO as announced at the Lisbon
Summit in November 2010. The committee is concerned that when
this commitment was made, there was no clear understanding of
the cost of the EPAA deployment; the committee notes that there
has not yet been a detailed assessment of the cost of the
deployment. The committee understands that the Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation office in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense is now attempting to provide a comprehensive and
detailed cost estimate for the EPAA. The committee notes that
in a letter in February of this year, Acting Under Secretary of
Defense, stated that a briefing on the interim findings of the
cost estimate would be provided in March of this year to
support the committee's oversight activities; that briefing was
not provided.
The committee is aware that some of the command and control
arrangements are being sorted out now in anticipation of the
NATO summit in May of 2012 in Chicago. As noted elsewhere in
this report, the committee expects to be briefed on these
arrangements, which should assist the committee in better
understanding the extent to which the EPAA is providing for the
missile defense of Europe and the missile defense of the United
States and its interests, including its deployed forces. Such
understanding is key to the appropriate cost-sharing of the
EPAA.
The committee also notes significant budget challenges to
the United States missile defense program in view of the budget
cuts under the Budget Control Act (Public Law 112-25) and the
President's budget requests since his fiscal year 2010 budget
request. The committee is aware that the budget request for the
Missile Defense Agency for fiscal year 2013 is approximately
$400.0 million less than the request for fiscal year 2012, and
the projected requests between fiscal year 2013-16 are
approximately $3.6 billion less in the fiscal year 2013 Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP) than they were in the fiscal year
2012 FYDP.
The committee notes that such reductions have had an impact
on the budgets for the national missile defense programs,
including the ground-based midcourse defense program, the sea-
based X-band radar system, and forward deployed AN/TPY-2
radars, which can have significant capability for homeland and
regional missile defense. The committee also notes significant
reductions in systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense system. The committee notes, however, that plans for
the EPAA remain unchanged and, in many cases, the budget
requests have been increased by the fiscal year 2013 budget
request and FYDP. The committee recommends NATO provide
financial support for the U.S. contribution to Europe's missile
defense given the budget environment.
Section 231--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the Precision
Tracking Space System
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) until a contract
is signed for an analysis of alternatives by a Federally Funded
Research and Development Corporation (FFRDC), which has not
been involved with the PTSS program to date, and which appoints
a panel of independent study leaders. This provision would also
require that the terms of reference for the study should be
shared with the congressional defense committees when the AOA
is commenced. This section would also limit the use of funds
only to PTSS technology development activities until the FFRDC
completes the analysis and 60 days have lapsed since the report
has been provided to the congressional defense committees.
This section would require that the analysis of
alternatives examine the possible lowest cost sensor option,
i.e., land-, air-, space-based, or some combination of them,
with respect to acquisition and operations and sustainment
costs over the next 10 years, and for improving homeland
missile defense, including adding discrimination capability for
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. This section would
also require the FFRDC to examine what overhead persistent
imagery data or other data is already available that is not
being used for missile defense and how the exploitation of that
data could aid the missile defense mission. The FFRDC would
also be required to study the plans for integrating PTSS into
the ballistic missile defense system and evaluate the concept
of operations for its use in the system.
The committee expects the analysis conducted by the FFRDC
will be based on a clear articulation by the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) of the following: the ground-based sensors that
will be required to be maintained to aid the PTSS
constellation; the number of satellites planned to be procured
for a first constellation (including projected lifetime of
satellites in the first constellation) and a replenishment
constellation; technological and acquisition risks of the PTSS,
and an evaluation of technological capability differences
between PTSS and the STSS; and, the costs of the system
including the projected acquisition, integration, operations,
and sustainment costs, including for launch services. The
committee expects all cost data used by the FFRDC will be fully
validated by the Department of Defense Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation office, and will be compared with other
missile defense sensor systems. This section would also require
that the AOA include an examination of the space situational
awareness capabilities of the PTSS, including requirements and
cost-sharing between MDA and the Air Force based on a
memorandum to be negotiated between the two agencies, which
should be shared with the congressional defense committees.
The committee recommends this provision based on concerns
raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that a
true analysis of alternatives (AOA) for PTSS was never
conducted. In addition, in testimony before the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces in March 2012 on the missile defense budget
request for fiscal year 2013, the Director, Missile Defense
Agency stated that ``the capability for a missile defense
system like this will spend most of its time doing functions
other than missile defense.'' The committee believes that a
system that will spend most of its time doing a mission other
than homeland missile defense, in this case, the space
situational awareness mission, should be more directly designed
for its primary mission, and that the MDA should not be
entirely responsible for the cost of this system. In the event
that the analysis of alternatives the committee has recommended
concurs with the PTSS as the optimal way ahead for the homeland
missile defense mission, the committee believes this provision
is vital to ensure the responsible expenditure of taxpayer
dollars.
Lastly, the committee is aware that the Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation office of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense is still conducting a review of the cost of the PTSS.
The committee believes that it should have a more fulsome
understanding of the costs and tradeoffs of this system before
it too heavily invests scarce missile defense dollars in this
system.
Section 232--Plan to Improve Discrimination and Kill Assessment
Capability of Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director, Missile Defense Agency to develop a plan, to be
submitted to the congressional defense committees not later
than December 31, 2012, and include the funding for such plan
in his fiscal year 2014 budget request, for an improved
discrimination and kill assessment capability of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Systems, including, specifically, the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense system.
Section 233--Plan to Increase Rate of Flight Tests of Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense System
This section would require the Director, Missile Defense
Agency to develop a plan to increase the rate of flight tests
and ground tests of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.
The plan shall ensure that there are at least three flight
tests every 2 years, unless the Director, Missile Defense
Agency provides written certification and an analysis to the
congressional defense committees that it is not feasible or
cost-effective. This section would require the Director include
funding for such plan in the fiscal year 2014 budget request.
Section 234--Report on Regional Missile Defense Architectures
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
shall provide a report to the congressional defense committees
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, describing: (1) the planned regional missile defense
architectures, including the force structure and inventory
requirements derived from these planned architectures, and
their purpose and cost; and, (2) the comprehensive force
management process, and the capability, deployment, and
resource outcomes that have been determined by this process.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) required the preparation of a report on
regional missile defense plans in order to better understand
the force structure and budgetary implications of the plan
articulated in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review of 2010 to
create regional missile defense architectures beyond the
European Phased Adaptive Approach in East Asia and the Middle
East. However, the committee can find no record of the receipt
of this required report.
Section 235--Use of Funds for Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that out of funds authorized to be appropriated for
ground-testing activities of the conventional prompt global
strike program, they only be expended using competitive
solicitation procedures to involve industry as well as
government partners.
Section 236--Transfer of Aegis Weapon System Equipment to Missile
Defense Agency
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy, in
accordance with section 230 of this Act, to transfer to the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Aegis weapon system
equipment for use in the Aegis Ashore Site in Romania, with
certain authorities to preserve shipbuilding schedules. The
Director of the Missile Defense Agency would be authorized to
transfer Aegis weapon system equipment for installation in a
shore-based Aegis weapon system to the Secretary of the Navy
for use in the DDG-51 Destroyer program.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 241--Study on Electronic Warfare Capabilities of the Marine
Corps
This section would require that the Commandant of the
Marine Corps to conduct a study on the future capabilities of
the Marine Corps with respect to electronic warfare, and to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
which would include: a detailed plan for EA-6B Prowler aircraft
squadrons; a solution for the replacement of the EA-6B
aircraft; concepts of operation for future air-ground task
force electronic warfare capabilities of the Marine Corps; and
any other issues that the Commandant determines to be
appropriate.
Section 242--National Research Council Review of Defense Science and
Technical Graduate Education Needs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council to
review Department of Defense specialized degree-granting
graduate programs in engineering, applied sciences, and
management.
Section 243--Report on Three-Dimensional Integrated Circuit
Manufacturing Capabilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a comprehensive assessment regarding three-dimensional
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.
Section 244--Report on Efforts to Field New Directed Energy Weapons
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
summarizing efforts within the Department of Defense to
transition mature and maturing directed energy technologies to
new operational weapon systems.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 251--Eligibility for Department of Defense Laboratories To
Enter into Educational Partnerships with Educational Institutions in
Territories and Possessions of the United States
This section would amend section 2194f of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the directors of the Department of
Defense laboratories to enter into education partnership
agreements with educational institutions in U.S. territories
and possessions.
Section 252--Regional Advanced Technology Clusters
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to use
the research and engineering network of the Department of
Defense to support regional advanced technology clusters
established by the Secretary of Commerce to encourage the
development of innovative advanced technologies. This section
would also designate an office within the Department of Defense
with the lead responsibility for enhancing the Department's use
of regional advanced technology clusters.
Section 253--Briefing on Power and Energy Research Conducted at
University Affiliated Research Center
This section would direct the Department of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
February 28, 2013, on power and energy research conducted at
University Affiliated Research Centers.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request totaled $273.3 billion in operation and
maintenance (O&M) funds to ensure the Department of Defense can
train, deploy, and sustain U.S. military forces. The fiscal
year 2013 O&M request included $209.3 billion in the base
budget and $64.0 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO). Some 23 percent of the total request is for OCO. This
fiscal year 2013 total request represents an 8 percent decrease
from fiscal year 2012 appropriations of $284.8 billion.
The committee notes that overall readiness trends saw
improvements in non-deployed unit readiness, including
equipment availability and condition, personnel, and training
in fiscal year 2012. However, concerns about the overall
readiness of the total force remain. These shortfalls continue
to present an increased risk to national security if the
military had to respond quickly to emergent contingencies. With
the conclusion of operations in the Republic of Iraq and the
ongoing drawdown of operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, the committee anticipates a continuing realignment
of funding from the Department's OCO request to the services'
O&M base budgets to better represent normalized budget
requirements, to accommodate training across the full spectrum
of conflict, and to reset war-torn equipment. However, the
committee remains concerned about the risk associated with the
continued funding of enduring requirements outside of the base
budget.
The Army budget's top-line reduction is driven largely by
the end of U.S. military operations in the Republic of Iraq,
reductions in the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan, and the Army's
decision to shed at least eight brigade combat teams by 2017.
While the OCO budget decreased, the base budget increased to
support the reset of equipment that has been damaged or worn
out through 10 years of demand, and also to support increased
home-station training for full spectrum operations as the Army
commits fewer units to combat operations. While deployed Army
forces have, in most cases, the equipment, personnel, and
training they require for their missions, this deployed
readiness has, for the past 10 years, come largely at the
expense of non-deployed Army units. Fiscal year 2012 saw
improvements in non-deployed unit readiness, including
equipment availability and condition, personnel, and training.
However, there are still shortfalls in several areas,
especially within the Guard and Reserve components. These
shortfalls are expected to begin seeing improvement now that
combat forces have withdrawn from Iraq and with initial
reductions in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The
fiscal year 2013 budget seeks to accelerate this trend by
addressing some of the most serious shortfalls and by
increasing funds for both the Guard and Reserve. To address key
training shortfalls in one specific area, the committee
recommends requiring Army medical evacuation crews be certified
as paramedics within the next two years and to improve the
management of Army simulated training. To address equipment
shortfall concerns, the committee recommends clarification in
guidance for the sustainment of key weapon systems and
equipment reset and retrograde. Additionally, to assess the
readiness of the force, the committee recommends the
Comptroller General examine key readiness trends and indicators
to help the committee understand the current state of the
force. To address another readiness trend, the committee also
directed the Secretary of Defense to examine key factors
driving increased levels of depot maintenance carryover to
ensure that this key function remains appropriately resourced.
The Air Force proposed to reduce its overall force
structure but retain the current readiness of remaining assets.
This includes an Air Force proposal to eliminate seven fighter
squadrons (two active and five reserve squadrons) including
five A-10 squadrons, one F-15C squadron, and one F-16 squadron.
Overall, the Air Force proposed reducing 303 aircraft,
including 123 combat aircraft, 150 mobility and tanker
aircraft, and 30 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
aircraft. At the same time, the Air Force indicates that
overall accounts for training, maintenance, and operations are
fully funded to meet existing requirements. From a facilities
perspective, the Air Force proposed to take risk in the
sustainment, restoration and modernization of facilities. After
assessing the proposed force structure of the Air Force, the
committee restored the entirety of the force structure
reductions proposed by the Air Force in fiscal year 2013. The
committee also restored funding to support 24-hour operation of
the Aerospace Control Alert function which provides defense of
the homeland through Operation Noble Eagle. Finally, the
committee recommended full funding of the Air Force's baseline
training requirements, full funding for the flying-hour
program, and a substantial increase to facility restoration and
modernization.
With the fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Navy attempts
a course correction to restore depot maintenance funding in
order to fully fund maintenance requirements. Despite the
drawdown in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, operational
tempo is expected to remain high, particularly in light of the
Department's intended strategic pivot to the Pacific which will
predominantly demand maritime assets. Beyond this, the demand
for the Navy's services is increasing, particularly due to
increased tensions with the Islamic Republic of Iran, anti-
piracy missions, missile defense operations, and additional
support of U.S. Africa Command and the Arctic. Like the Army,
the Navy's next-to-deploy forces are reporting high levels of
readiness, but this also comes at the expense of the non-
deployed forces that experience fewer training opportunities as
resources are prioritized toward meeting Global Force
Management demands. To reduce the risk to Navy readiness, the
committee recommends funding the operation and maintenance
costs for fiscal year 2013 to retain three of four guided
missile cruisers that the Navy proposed for early retirement.
In addition to this, the committee authorizes full funding for
the inactivation execution of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS
Enterprise and begins incremental funding of that work in the
first of the three fiscal years anticipated for execution.
The Marine Corps is undertaking a massive reset operation
to replace and refurbish equipment and vehicles damaged in
wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fiscal year
2013 budget request included increases for the Marine Corps'
reset efforts for combat vehicles, the Armored Amphibious
Vehicle (AAV), rotary wing aircraft, and the repair and
refurbishment of communications equipment and crew-served
weapons. The Marine Corps also faces reductions in its training
accounts in light of the service's decision to ``rebalance''
the Corps to a ``middle-weight'' force of 182,100 personnel,
down from 202,000. In light of a smaller force, the Marine
Corps has made some initial investments in specialized skill
sets and enablers that help the Corps adapt to its smaller,
more amphibious-centric role such as cyber, intelligence, and
Marine Corps Special Operations.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
Office of Net Assessment
The committee notes that the Director of the Office of Net
Assessment, within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, is
responsible for developing and coordinating net assessments of
the standing, trends, and future prospects of U.S. military
capabilities and military potential in comparison with those of
other countries or groups of countries so as to identify
emerging or future threats or opportunities for the United
States. The committee believes that as fiscal resources become
increasingly constrained and the security challenges faced by
the United States grow, the unique function performed by the
Director is more important than ever. As Secretary Panetta
stated in testimony before the House Budget Committee in March,
2012, ``. . . unlike past drawdowns when threats have receded,
the United States still faces a complex array of security
challenges across the globe: We are still a nation at war in
Afghanistan; we still face threats from terrorism; there is
dangerous proliferation of lethal weapons and materials; the
behavior of Iran and North Korea threaten global stability;
there is continuing turmoil and unrest in the Middle East;
rising powers in Asia are testing international relationships;
and there are growing concerns about cyber intrusions and
attacks.'' Moreover, a key tenet of the President's new defense
strategic guidance released in January, 2012 is reversibility.
The guidance states . . . [the Department of Defense] sought to
differentiate between those investments that should be made
today and those that can be deferred. This includes an
accounting of our ability to make a course change that could be
driven by many factors, including shocks or evolutions in the
strategic, operational, economic, and technological spheres.''
The committee notes that the concept of reversibility relies
upon several factors, including advance warning of emerging
threats. Therefore, it is critical that the Department maintain
a robust capability to identify disruptive shifts in the
security environment, in order to anticipate and respond to
such challenges.
Nevertheless, the budget request for fiscal year 2013
contained $10.0 million for the Office of Net Assessment,
within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide. This request
represents the second consecutive year the budget request has
included a decrement in the proposed funding for the Office.
The committee notes that these cuts have been justified on the
basis of efficiencies. While the committee supports
efficiencies in the operations of the Department, it observes
that this budget request is a significant reduction. In fact,
the budget request for fiscal year 2013 is slightly less than
half the budget requested for fiscal year 2011. The committee
is concerned that such reductions do not simply cut waste, but
disrupt the ability of the Department to effectively
prognosticate and challenge conventional assumptions. As a
result, elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends an
authorization of $20.0 million for the Office of Net
Assessment, an increase of $10.0 million, for fiscal year 2013.
The committee encourages the Director of the Office of Net
Assessment to exploit efficiencies within the Director's office
in order to maximize the use of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for research, exploration,
location of talent, and identification of emerging trends,
rather than administration and overhead.
Reduction in Army Depot Maintenance due to Carryover
The committee found that the Army had more than $5.7
billion in total carryover workload at of the end of fiscal
year 2011, representing some 12.7 months of unexecuted
workload. Additionally, the committee has learned that the Army
will be unable to fully execute all programmed reset funding
for depot-level maintenance through fiscal year 2013. With the
magnitude of work to be done on equipment returning from
Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom, and the
likelihood that the Army will not execute it in such a short
period of time, the committee finds that funds requested for
fiscal year 2013 depot-level maintenance, Operation and
Maintenance, are early to need, as this workload will most
likely be performed in fiscal year 2014 or later. Therefore,
the committee recommends a reduction of $250.0 million.
Energy Issues
Energy and Fuel Budget Justification
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
emphasis on energy reductions, investments in renewable
projects that result in long-term savings, and more efficient
processes that reduce demand for fuel consumption. The
committee is, however, concerned by the lack of visibility into
the annual investments in energy and expenditures on fuel. The
committee notes that the Department of Defense spent $19.4
billion in fiscal year 2011 on energy, an increase from the
total expenditure of $15.2 billion in fiscal year 2010. The
committee is concerned about fluctuating fuel prices, and the
resulting shortfalls and impacts on the operation and
maintenance accounts.
Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees in conjunction
with the annual President's Budget request, a separate budget
justification material on energy and fuel budget justification.
The material should include details of energy costs by account,
energy investments by account, and details of fuel
expenditures. The committee recognizes that there are a variety
of funding accounts and mechanisms being leveraged for energy
investments that result in reductions in long-term sustainment
costs. Therefore, the energy and fuel justification should
include the details regarding the total energy expenditures by
account and investments being made for energy by account and
type of funds across the Future Years Defense Program to ensure
that the committee can exercise the necessary oversight for the
investment in funds.
Regarding fuel expenditures, the committee seeks
information regarding budgeted fuel prices, adjustments to the
account, resulting shortfalls or excesses, and details
regarding the accounts that funded any such shortfalls and the
impact to those accounts. The committee notes that in the
fiscal year 2013 budget request, the projected price for fuel
is $157 per barrel, whereas the average price in fiscal year
2012 is $162 per barrel. The committee also notes that the
price for fuel projected across the FYDP is $137 per barrel.
Recognizing the volatility in the fuel market, the committee
further directs the Secretary of Defense to more accurately
project fuel prices and to seek opportunities to enter into
longer-term bulk fuel contracts or identify other options that
would stabilize the fuel accounts for the military services.
Marine Energy Technologies
The committee is aware of the Navy's efforts to develop and
test wave marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies as one of
many technology solutions helping the Navy meet its shore
energy goals and mandates, as well as to potentially power
maritime security systems, and support at-sea surveillance and
communications systems. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees by October 31, 2012, on the current and future
investments in test wave marine and hydrokinetic energy
technologies, the payback associated with this investment, the
future of the program, and a map of possible locations in
proximity to military installations for employing this
technology.
Navy Hybrid Electric Technology
The committee is aware of the Navy's efforts to incorporate
hybrid electric engines into its fleet to reduce fuel
consumption, and to help meet its energy goals. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by October 31, 2012, on the current and long-
term employment of hybrid electric engine technology. The
briefing should include details on the potential long-term
savings that may be achieved, the projected cost for
incorporating such technology in the initial design of engines,
the cost to retrofit a platform with the technology, and future
plans to incorporate this technology into additional classes of
ships in the fleet.
Procurement Procedures to Incorporate the Use of Fuel Cells
The Defense Logistics Agency sponsored report, ``Beyond
Demonstration: The Role of Fuel Cells in DOD's Energy
Strategy,'' published on October 19, 2011, offers
recommendations with respect to the Department of Defense's use
of fuel cell technology for distributed generation, backup
power, unmanned vehicles, and non-tactical material handling
equipment. The committee is very interested in the Department's
use of fuel cells in defense energy applications.
The committee directs the Department to Defense to brief
the congressional defense committees no later than June 1,
2013, on the implementation of the report's recommendations.
This brief should address how the Department is addressing the
following report recommendations:
(1) Develop and implement procurement models, which
enable more efficient acquisition of fuel cell systems,
including through third-party financing mechanisms,
such as power purchase agreements;
(2) Require consideration of natural gas as well as
renewable-fueled fuel cells for meeting electric power,
heating, cooling and back-up power requirements for new
and major renovations of DOD facilities and include
evaluation of fuel cell options in all A/E design
contracts;
(3) Require that solicitations for energy services/
electric power include consideration of natural gas and
renewable fueled stationary fuel cells and fuel cells
for back-up power;
(4) Require that designers of unmanned vehicles
evaluate fuel cells as an option for providing power;
and
(5) Encourage the incorporation of fuel cell power in
material handling applications.
Logistics and Sustainment Issues
Army Management of the Organic Industrial Base
The committee is aware that the Army is currently
evaluating the potential benefits of having U.S. Army
Installation Management Command (IMCOM) assume responsibility
from U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) of the day-to-day
management of the service's organic industrial base
installations.
While the committee commends the Army for exploring ways to
become more efficient in its management of these facilities and
recognizes that other military departments manage their
portions of the organic industrial base in a similar manner, it
is concerned about the possible unintended consequences of
having IMCOM assume responsibility over the depots and
arsenals. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Army Installation Management Command in consultation with the
Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Command to establish policies to
ensure that in any future transition that:
(1) Depot and arsenal production remain under the
purview of the depot and arsenal commanders;
(2) IMCOM establishes a formal process for the proper
prioritization of resourcing of depots and arsenals
within the IMCOM budget, including statutory
requirements for capital improvements;
(3) Duplicative management structures are not
created; and
(4) The organic industrial base retains the necessary
flexibility to allocate its allotted funding, such as
the Critical Infrastructure Program, to best meet
customer needs.
To enable the proper oversight of implementation, the
committee further directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180
days of any formal approval by the Secretary of the Army to
shift management of the Army's organic industrial base from AMC
to IMCOM.
Consolidated Guidance for Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected Vehicle
Sustainment
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
rapidly acquiring and fielding mine-resistant ambush-protected
(MRAP) vehicles in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom,
Enduring Freedom, and New Dawn. The committee also recognizes
the progress the military departments have made in planning for
the disposition of their respective MRAP fleets. However, the
committee is concerned about the lack of a long-term joint
guidance for the integration of MRAP vehicles within the
military departments' existing fleets and the sustainment of
the enduring fleet. The committee notes the significant
investment made in the development and fielding of the MRAP
fleet and the costs associated with its sustainment in a
reduced budgetary environment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with Secretaries of the military departments
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop Department-wide
guidance for the sustainment of the MRAP vehicle fleet and to
submit the guidance to the congressional defense committees in
conjunction with the submission of the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2014. At a minimum, the guidance should
address:
(1) The enduring nature of the IED (improvised
explosive device) threat and any needed MRAP
capability;
(2) MRAP variants that will be deemed enduring;
(3) Fulfilling outstanding combatant commander
requirements for MRAPs;
(4) An operations and sustainment plan for the MRAP
fleet;
(5) The MRAP fleet's integration into training
programs, centers, and curricula;
(6) The MRAP fleet's integration into prepositioned
stocks; and
(7) The MRAP guidance's congruence with other
acquisition strategies, operations plans, and combatant
commander requirements.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on
the guidance within 30 days of the budget's submission to
Congress.
Corrosion Mitigation Information Sharing
The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the
Department of Defense to leverage the work of universities, and
private and non-profit organizations, to improve the sharing of
comprehensive corrosion information and expertise with the
military services and defense agencies by streamlining data and
making it available through improved software and other
information sharing tools. The committee believes that this
will complement the efforts of the Department of Defense Office
of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to control, prevent, predict,
and solve corrosion-related problems to minimize the impact of
corrosion on Department of Defense platforms and assets.
Department of Defense Counterfeit Parts
In addition to the committee's concerns about strategic
materials and supply chain security cited in title IX and title
XVI of this Act, the committee is concerned about the readiness
and sustainment impacts associated with the growing number of
counterfeit parts entering the Department of Defense's supply
stream. The committee is particularly concerned about critical
components and spare parts that have been re-marked to display
the part numbers and manufacturer logos of authentic parts; are
deficient from military standards; have altered date markings
to represent the parts as newer than when they were last
manufactured; and bogus parts using invalid part numbers or
dates beyond the last known legitimate production. The
committee urges the Department to leverage existing initiatives
to establish anti-counterfeiting guidance and disseminate this
guidance to all departmental components and defense
contractors. The committee also urges the Department, as it
develops its anti-counterfeit program, to analyze collected
data to best target and refine counterfeit-part risk-mitigation
strategies.
Depot Maintenance Carryover Definition
The committee notes that carryover is a portion of
maintenance work not completed during the year of obligation
and carried into the next fiscal year. Under Department of
Defense (DOD) policy, the allowable amount of carryover is
based on the outlay rate of the customers' appropriations
financing work. According to the Government Accountability
Office, when working capital fund activities accept orders late
in the year that generally cannot be completed, or in some
cases started, by the end of the fiscal year, the amount of
carryover greatly increases. The committee also recognizes that
greater workload requirements generated by operations in the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan led to
additional carryover for DOD depots, particularly at Army and
Marine Corps depots. The committee encourages the Department to
manage depot workload so that established carryover rules do
not become a detriment to the organic depots and their ability
to continue cost-effective operations.
The committee further encourages the Department to exclude
depot maintenance workloads funded through procurement
appropriations from the Department's current methodology for
calculating carryover ceiling targets. The committee notes that
procurement funding is multi-year in nature, and the depot
maintenance requirements funded with procurement appropriations
are not normally programmed to be completed in the first year
in which procurement funds are obligated. The committee
believes that it is unnecessary to include depot maintenance
workloads funded by procurement appropriations in carryover
ceiling targets.
Operating and Support Cost Estimation Reporting
The committee is aware that, in February 2012, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the report,
``Defense Logistics: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight
of Estimated Long-term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major
Weapon Systems'' (GAO-12-340). The committee notes that among
the report's findings is that the Department of Defense's
selected acquisition ``reports to Congress on estimated weapon
system operating and support (O&S) costs are often inconsistent
and sometimes unreliable, limiting visibility needed for
effective oversight of these costs.'' The committee is
concerned about the lack of reliable, objective O&S cost data
provided to Congress. Further, the committee is concerned that
this lack of reliable data could limit its visibility into
these costs and hamper its ability to provide effective
oversight and make sound funding decisions. However, the
committee understands that the Director, Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation is assessing the systems and methods through
which the Department tracks O&S costs on major defense
acquisition programs as required by the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). The
committee urges the Director, Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to address the Comptroller General's findings in
GAO-12-340 as part of its ongoing assessment, and to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2013, on the steps being taken to implement the recommendations
included in GAO-12-340.
Testing and Evaluation of Materials Degradation
The committee encourages the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation to consider the impacts of corrosion and
exposure of equipment to corrosive environments when
considering its evaluation of individual program test and
evaluation master plans and conducting operational tests and
evaluations across platforms and weapon systems. The committee
believes that this will more accurately depict the environments
in which the equipment will be operated and will help ensure
material degradation due to corrosion does not become a
limiting factor during the useful service life of a weapon.
The committee recognizes the issues that were highlighted
by the Government Accountability Office regarding the F-22
Raptor and believes such issues could be more effectively
mitigated or addressed if given consideration throughout the
initial acquisition and testing process, as Congress intended
in the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-23). Therefore, the committee directs the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by October 31, 2012, on how
corrosion prevention, mitigation, and control are incorporated
into the test and evaluation plans for weapon systems, and
actions taken in the test and evaluation community to consider
material degradation due to corrosion and the impacts to long-
term sustainment costs.
Safety and Security Standards for Transportation Protective Service
Commercial Carriers
The committee is concerned that DOD has not implemented
stringent enough safety standards for potentially dangerous
cargo that is routinely transported by Transportation
Protective Service (TPS) commercial carriers through our
nation's highways and communities. These shipments are often
not only potentially hazardous to the public but involve
sensitive and classified defense material that require
heightened levels of security, improved incident response
capabilities and continuous monitoring while in transit.
The committee was disappointed to learn that a number of
reasonable recommendations to improve safety performance
standards submitted by the Security and Safety Subcommittee of
the National Defense Transportation Association's (NDTA)
Surface Committee, were later rejected by DOD's Surface
Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) even though SDDC was
an active participant in the subcommittee's deliberations.
These standards included the following: adopting minimum DOT
safety performance at 50th percentile; mandating proven safety
technologies in trucks; requiring carrier operations center be
continually staffed; outlining specific carrier
responsibilities for incident; and incentivizing carriers with
strong safety records.
The decision by SDDC to instead follow less stringent
criteria is found by the committee to be insufficient. It is
the view of the committee that material transported by TPS is
largely unique to DOD and requires appropriate safety and
security measures beyond that required for non-defense
commercial carriers.
Accordingly, the committee directs DOD to adopt increased
mandatory minimum standards to ensure the safety of the public
and require DOD-approved TPS carriers possess adequate
procedures and safety standards for both drivers and vehicles.
The committee is encouraged that SDDC has undertaken efforts to
develop a process and metrics for evaluating driver and carrier
performance. The committee therefore directs DOD to provide the
defense committees a report on its proposed carrier evaluation
and safety standards plan within 45 days after enactment of
this Act.
Surveying and Mapping
The committee is aware that the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) has issued a draft request for
proposals (RFP) for its newest omnibus contract. The committee
is also aware that this draft RFP takes a different contracting
approach than similar past solicitations. The committee
recognizes that contracting means have evolved for the better,
but also notes that the current process has been successfully
utilized for more than 15 years. To better understand the
rationale for the current contracting approach, the committee
directs the Director of the NGA to provide a briefing on the
acquisition strategy for the GEOINT Data Services contract not
later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act.
Readiness Issues
Analysis of Readiness Trends
In the January 2012 strategic guidance and the fiscal year
2013 budget request, the Department of Defense presented a new
defense strategy and related budget decisions that the
committee believes have significant implications for the
sizing, use, and readiness of U.S. forces. Specifically, the
Department is calling for what it describes as a smaller,
lighter, flexible joint force able to conduct a full range of
activities, and has proposed reductions in either end strength
and/or force structure in each of the military departments.
Since the turn of the century, the Department has been heavily
engaged in ongoing operations which, among other things, have
required personnel to deploy frequently and have left little
time to train for anything other than counterinsurgency
missions. These ongoing operations and repeated use of
equipment have accelerated the degradation of equipment
readiness which has begun to show signs of improvement only
since the cessation of operations in the Republic of Iraq. In
addition, units that are not deployed have had to transfer
equipment and personnel to deploying units, causing shortfalls.
Notwithstanding steps the Department has taken in the past
several years intended to enhance its ability to better manage
deployments and address readiness concerns, including
implementing programmatic actions and increasing investments,
reported readiness rates have declined over the past 12 years
and are improving only as operations in Iraq have ceased and
units' dwell time at home station has increased along with
opportunities for expanded training. During this time period,
the Department of Defense has also made various changes in its
readiness reporting policies and supporting information systems
which have resulted in adjustments to the scope of readiness
data that is reported to internal and external decision-makers.
To help inform the committee's oversight of the
Department's efforts to improve readiness and its consideration
of the budget request, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to prepare and submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2013, on the
readiness of U.S. forces. The report should include, at a
minimum, an analysis of:
(1) Key changes in the type of readiness information
available to Congress and Department of Defense
decision-makers, such as those resulting from changes
in readiness reporting policies;
(2) The current and historical readiness status of
each of the military departments including any trends
in reported readiness and any major areas of
deficiencies;
(3) Actions taken by the Department to address the
above identified deficiencies and the nature and
results of any assessments undertaken by the Department
of Defense to measure the contribution of these actions
towards improving readiness;
(4) The extent to which the Department has developed
any further action plans and identified associated
resource needs to assess the aforementioned
deficiencies; and
(5) The impact of the cessation of operations in Iraq
on readiness, including training, equipment, and
personnel availability.
Army Immersive Gaming and Simulation Training Architecture
The committee understands that the Army continues to
incorporate a growing number of immersive gaming and simulation
systems into its ``Army Force Generation'' training model. The
committee understands that as this integration has progressed,
several technical challenges concerning interoperability and
technology refreshment have emerged. Specifically, the
committee is aware of conflicting hardware requirements,
software compatibility issues, and training tool integration
challenges. The committee is concerned that efforts to grow
this medium of training further in a constrained budgetary
environment without standardization of the supporting
architecture could lead to unsustainable and unnecessary growth
in the civilian manpower or contractor support required to
effectively operate and maintain the architecture.
Therefore the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to institute Army-wide
standards for immersive gaming and simulation architecture. As
part of these standards, the committee directs the Commander,
U.S. TRADOC to require a common hardware standard to the
maximum extent possible to reduce life-cycle costs of buying,
maintaining, and upgrading equipment. Further, the commander,
in his guidance, should ensure that future system development
uses a common operating system or, at a minimum, a compatible
operating system, to an established standard. The committee
also directs the Commander, U.S. TRADOC to utilize, to the
extent possible, an open architecture for software products to
ensure the maximum level of interoperability between various
training tools in order to provide the best possible training
environment.
Army Rotary Wing Aviation Water Egress Training
The committee recognizes the need to ensure the Army
provides its rotary-wing aviation community with the best
survivability training available. The committee is aware that
the Army's capability to train a key component of
survivability, water egress, may be degraded. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to formally assess
the Army's current rotary-wing water egress training capability
and submit written notification to the congressional defense
committees outlining the findings by December 1, 2012, and
ensure that any deficiencies are addressed in the fiscal year
2014 budget submission.
Chemical Protective Over-Garment Stockpile
The committee believes that protecting troops from
dangerous conditions in the battlefield is a top priority, and
the Chemical Protective Over-Garment (CPOG) is the primary
means by which individual military members are protected
against contact with chemical, biological, and other threats.
The production of CPOG suits is a complex process that includes
the acquisition of special fabric and bonding of the material
in addition to sewing and packaging. The committee is concerned
about the impact of an extended break in CPOG production and,
therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the
congressional defense committees written notification of the
number of CPOG suits in the current Department of Defense
inventory within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The notification should include: the number of suits in
each camouflage pattern; the number of suits in each size; and
the locations where suits are being stored. The notification
should also include a detailed summary of the age of the suits
in the current stockpile along with testing data which was used
to validate extending the shelf-life of CPOG suits currently in
the inventory.
Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program
The committee recognizes that commercial air carriers
participating in the Department of Defense's Civil Reserve Air
Fleet (CRAF) program commit their aircraft to be called upon,
or activated, to support a range of military operations. As an
incentive to encourage participation in CRAF, the Department of
Defense contracts with CRAF participants to fly its daily
peacetime passenger and cargo airlift business. CRAF
participants are used to directly augment an increasingly
overburdened organic fleet which has been significantly
overflown in the last 10 years (C-5s average overfly 30 percent
per year, and C-17s average overfly 7 percent per year). Based
on reports indicating recent consolidations among CRAF
participants, a decreased use of CRAF aircraft for military
missions, and an historical overuse of the Department of
Defense's organic air mobility fleet, the committee is
concerned with the long-term ability of CRAF and the organic
mobility fleet to meet the Department of Defense's needs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 31, 2013, on the following:
(1) The relevant statutes, regulations, and
Department of Defense guidance and policies pertaining
to the use of commercial airlift to support military
operations under the CRAF program;
(2) The Department of Defense's usage rates for CRAF
and how those rates compare to those of its military
air fleet, for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, as well as a
historical perspective of usage rates as appropriate.
Additionally, this analysis should include the
identification of statutes, regulations, guidance, or
policies in place to address usage rates in the CRAF
program;
(3) An analysis of any justification to support
unclassified restricted routes that prohibit civilian
aircraft from participating;
(4) The extent to which the Department of Defense has
established future requirements for CRAF and how the
planned size of CRAF compares to those requirements;
and
(5) Any additional information that the Comptroller
General determines will further inform the committees
on issues related to the CRAF program.
Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Training
The committee is aware that the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) obligates more than $150.0
million annually to support counter-IED (C-IED) training. The
committee notes JIEDDO's evolving efforts to ensure all
warfighters receive the necessary training for effective
operational employment for rapidly fielded C-IED systems. In
addition, the committee understands that it is the collective
assessment of the Department of Defense that the IED threat is
enduring and will require adequate resourcing in order to
sustain certain capabilities and related training requirements.
The committee believes that the best asset on the
battlefield is a well-led, trained, situationally aware
soldier, sailor, airman or marine. For this particular purpose,
the committee understands training as the ability to develop,
define, and set C-IED and Attack the Network training standards
for joint forces in response to combatant commanders'
requirements and integrate those standards into appropriate
joint and DOD concepts and doctrine. The committee commends
JIEDDO's training efforts and understands the difficulties in
managing training efforts that are inherent in an intense,
fluid IED environment. However, the committee also believes
that training is inherently the responsibility of the
respective military departments. The committee is concerned
that JIEDDO appears to lack a comprehensive plan for the
transition of current training initiatives to the military
services for long-term sustainment. The committee expects the
military departments to actively participate in the planning,
programming, and budgeting process for C-IED training and
encourages their participation in defining enduring
requirements. The committee also notes that a large portion of
JIEDDO funding is contained in the Overseas Contingency
Operations budget and that there is risk associated with
resourcing enduring training requirements outside of the base
budget. The committee expects that enduring training
capabilities managed by the military services should be
resourced in the base budget.
The committee directs the Director, Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization, in consultation with the
Secretaries of the military departments, to develop a
transition plan within 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act to guide the transfer of all enduring C-IED training
to the military departments by January 1, 2015. The Director
should provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees on the transition plan within 30 days of the plan's
completion.
Defense Cultural Training
The committee understands that, in August 2011, the
Secretary of Defense officially recognized language, regional,
and cultural skills as enduring war-fighting competencies with
the issuance of a service-wide memo. The committee believes
these competencies are critical to mission readiness and
supports the Secretary's position that more needs to be done to
provide individual service members and Department of Defense
civilians with the ability to effectively understand the
cultures of coalition forces, international partners, and local
populations. The committee believes that the most cost-
effective manner in which to deliver this training to the
Department is to collaborate with regionally accredited
institutions of higher education which have standing cultural
studies programs. The committee strongly urges the Department
to fully leverage these institutions and their capabilities.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to provide the congressional defense
committees with a report on the current status and future plans
for the Department's collaboration with institutions of higher
education for cultural training to include curriculum, course
requirements, and program accreditation by September 1, 2013.
Maintenance and Sustainment Readiness
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's new
strategic guidance, and Future Years Defense Program, places
increased demand on legacy Air Force platforms to counter
contemporary threats and meet global mission requirements.
These aging aircraft fleets, many of which were procured
decades ago, are expensive to maintain and lack dedicated
technology insertion programs to replace outdated materials,
product forms, and so-called ``problem parts'' that
dramatically increase operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
and limit mission availability. The committee is aware that
commercial aircraft fleets, working with an active
subcontractor base, have employed multiple generations of new
structural aluminum alloys, advanced manufacturing processes,
and joined technologies since the aging Air Force fleet was
designed. The committee also believes that the low-risk
transition of these proven commercial technologies, products,
and best practices could help the Air Force to increase mission
availability and reduce O&M costs for the aging fleet.
Through the expanded authority provided in section 333 of
this Act, the committee encourages the Air Force to leverage
commercially developed and proven technologies and products
within its modernization and sustainment activities in order to
increase mission availability, reduce total ownership costs,
and resolve supply chain issues. Section 333 would give the
Department of the Air Force the authority to use working-
capital funds for expenses directly related to conducting a
pilot program for a product or process improvement.
MC-12W Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Aircraft Program
The Air Force MC-12W Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Aircraft Program is currently assigned to the
Active Component. The Air Force has indicated it plans to
transfer the MC-12W program to a program of record in the Air
National Guard in fiscal year 2014. The committee is concerned
that the Air Force has not fully considered the life-cycle
costs and potential long-term operational impact of
transferring the MC-12W program from a quick reaction
capability to a program of record. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence within 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, on all life-cycle costs of
basing, training personnel, and operating and maintaining the
MC-12W program as a program of record in the Air National
Guard.
Operation and Maintenance Budget Transparency Requirements
The committee has been increasingly concerned about its
lack of visibility into the military departments' operation and
maintenance accounts. It is concerned that these large accounts
represent a wide array of activities that are not clearly
defined in the Department of Defense's annual budget
submission. The committee is also concerned that the
administrative and indirect costs imbedded within the operation
and maintenance accounts seem to be growing at a
disproportional rate to that of funding directly supporting
training and operations. This lack of budget visibility has
degraded the committee's ability to provide the necessary and
proper oversight to a large portion of the military
departments' budgets. However, the committee wishes to commend
the Marine Corps for providing much of this information in its
annual budget submission through the deployable day metric and
direct and indirect cost ratio metrics.
In addition, the committee has grown increasingly concerned
with the frequency and size of the military departments' intra-
budget activity transfers. While the committee has established
clear guidelines for congressional notification and approval of
above-threshold reprogramming requests, it has not provided
similar notification requirements for intra-budget activity
transfers. The committee believes that this, too, has degraded
the committee's ability to provide oversight and to ensure
authorized expenditures are being made in accordance with
congressional intent.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to establish a new consolidated budget
justification display to be delivered in conjunction with the
military departments' annual budget submissions that, at a
minimum:
(1) Fully identifies the military departments'
baseline operational tempo budget;
(2) Delineates direct and indirect costs including
resources and personnel;
(3) Defines the operational tempo budgetary
requirement;
(4) Defines the percentage of the requirement met by
the budget request;
(5) Displays a percentage of growth or decline for
both direct and indirect costs; and
(6) Clearly defines items included in both direct and
indirect costs.
In order to help the committee more fully understand
departmental priorities and future requirements within these
accounts, the committee further directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit written notification to the congressional
defense committees whenever an intra-budget activity transfer
within an operation and maintenance account exceeds $25.0
million.
Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment
The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of Defense
did not submit a budget justification display that covers
programs and activities for the procurement of organizational
clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) as required by the
House Report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The committee
continues to be concerned that the military services are
reliant on overseas contingency operation requests to fund OCIE
requirements and strongly urges the Secretary to include this
information with the submission of the Fiscal Year 2014 budget
request. Further, the committee is concerned about the long-
term sustainment of OCIE and believes that greater transparency
in annual budget justification materials would enhance
oversight.
In addition to the aforementioned budget display and the
report required by the House Report (H. Rept. No. 111-491) to
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
include performance and evaluation criteria on OCIE as part of
the Army's annual budget submission for Force Readiness
Operations Support beginning in Fiscal Year 2014. This
performance and evaluation criteria shall include budget
information for the previous two fiscal years and the current
year's request. The information shall be provided on a line-
item basis.
Paramedic Training and Certification for Army Medical Evacuation
Aircrews
The committee is aware that, in 2009, the Secretary of
Defense directed that the new U.S. Army standard for
aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC) is to evacuate urgent point-
of-injury patients to the appropriate level of care within one
hour of receiving a MEDEVAC mission request. The committee
commends the Department for meeting this important challenge
and its continued efforts to improve MEDEVAC operations. The
committee is aware that these efforts have contributed to a 92
percent survival rate for wounded service members in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the highest in U.S. history.
However, the committee is also aware that the Defense
Health Board (DHB), in June 2011, noted opportunities to
improve the care provided to casualties during tactical
evacuation, or the transit from point-of-injury to the first
medical treatment facility. The committee supports the DHB's
effort to enhance the quality of care provided to the
warfighter and supports its recommendations for improvement.
The committee understands that among the DHB's recommendations
were a need to institutionalize best practices, optimize
evacuation time for all likely tactical contingencies, enhance
in-flight care documentation procedures, and, notably, improve
the level of training and certification for in-flight care
providers. The committee was most interested in the DHB's
assessment regarding the linkages between mortality rates and
the level of in-flight care provider medical training,
specifically noting that flights with critical care flight
paramedic (CCFP) certified crews demonstrated increased patient
survivability rates.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement
the recommendations of the Committee on Tactical Combat
Casualty Care, as approved by the Defense Health Board,
entitled ``Tactical Evacuation Care Improvements within the
Department of Defense 2011-03,'' dated June 14, 2011. The
committee further directs the Secretary of the Army to
establish by September 1, 2012, a Department-wide standard that
requires all in-flight medical care providers to be CCFP
certified within the next three years.
Simulated Tactical Flight Training
The cost of operating high-performance fighter aircraft
continues to increase the overall costs of the flying hour
program. While the committee supports the current level of
funding of the flying hour program and the invaluable
experience provided, the committee believes that alternative
methods to train and prepare pilots for combat should be
assessed. One such alternative has been an increased reliance
on simulator-based training platforms. Among the emerging
technologies available to simulate the dynamic forces
experienced during flight is a new class of centrifuge-based
flight simulators known as ``sustained-G tactical flight
trainers.'' These simulators combine long-arm centrifugation
with high fidelity, flyable cockpit modules to mimic the
physiological stresses and G-forces experienced during actual
tactical flight.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study on the effectiveness of simulated tactical
flight training in a sustained G environment and to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by December 31,
2013. The study should assess the training effectiveness, cost
efficiencies, increased readiness, and life-cycle efficiencies
from simulator based training platforms on the modeled
aircraft.
Space Training
The committee notes the progress in the implementation of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Individual Training and Education
Needs Assessment recommendations. The committee continues to
support improving the integration of ballistic missile defense
training across and between combatant commands and military
services, and encourages the identification of capabilities and
funding necessary to effectively and adequately integrate this
training.
The committee recognizes that a similar study for space
training could improve integration, find efficiencies, and
identify opportunities to better meet Joint Requirements across
the services and combatant commands. The committee therefore
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide
a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2013, that contains the following:
(1) A description of existing space training and
education;
(2) An assessment of the synchronization and
standardization across existing training programs,
including best practices; and
(3) Recommendations that are warranted for training
improvements, including recommended roles and
responsibilities, organizational models, resources, and
facilities required for joint space training.
Strategic Mobility Study Plan
In the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
the conferees expressed concern about the Department of the
Navy's plans to place Maritime Prepositioning Ship Squadron-One
(MPRSON-1) in a reduced operating status. The committee
understands that in fiscal year 2013, the Navy has proposed to
further reduce the readiness of MPRSON-1 by placing it into the
Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF). The committee is concerned that the
decision to place MPRSON-1 into RRF status was done without due
consideration of other strategic lift reductions being made by
the other military departments. Furthermore, the committee
understands that U.S. Transportation Command intends to perform
a Strategic Mobility Capabilities Study in the coming calendar
year.
Therefore, to help ensure the conferees' concerns are
properly addressed, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Transportation Command, to provide a plan to congressional
defense committees for the forthcoming Strategic Mobility
Capabilities Study by August 1, 2012.
Training Range Encroachment
The committee believes that it should be a priority of the
Department of Defense to ensure military personnel continue to
have reliable access to military training ranges. Unimpeded
access to training ranges, such as the Pacific Missile Range
Facility, is essential to ensure military readiness. The
committee is aware that a number of training ranges are
threatened by encroachment due to the economic development of
surrounding lands. The committee is also aware of situations
where agreements, either formal or informal, exist with private
land owners who have been supportive of the military's training
activities and have allowed military operations to take place
on their property for a number of years. However, the committee
is concerned that military training could be impeded should
future private land owners be less supportive of such
operations. As such, the committee encourages the Department to
take appropriate action to leverage existing authorities and
programs, as well as work with states and municipalities to
leverage their authorities, to mitigate encroachment or other
challenges that have the potential to impede future access or
operations on military training ranges.
Unmanned Aircraft Training Strategic Plan
The committee notes that Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
training requirements will increase in the coming years due to
expanding inventories and the sustained high demand for UAS-
provided capabilities. If UAS pilots and sensor operators are
to maintain proficiency and mission readiness at their home
stations, the Department of Defense will need to address the
current constraints on training in the national airspace. The
development of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety
standards for UAS by 2016, as required by the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) will allow the
Department of Defense to access the national airspace for
routine training.
However, the committee believes that the Department needs
to have a strategic plan in place to absorb UAS into bases,
airspace, and training programs in the continental United
States, as the inventory grows and some assets return from the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which will likely be before
the establishment of safety standards.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the
congressional intelligence committees within 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act on an unmanned aircraft
training strategic plan that addresses the following:
(1) Identification and description of clearly defined
training requirements (including live versus simulated)
of all groups of UAS, and identify remaining UAS
training shortfalls, and provide UAS training
recommendations;
(2) An investment strategy for significantly
enhancing the quality and interoperability of UAS
training simulators;
(3) A plan for integrating live and simulated UAS
training into other programs of instruction, mission
rehearsal exercises, and combatant commander exercises;
(4) Department-wide UAS training standards that seek
an informed balance between live training and simulated
training; and
(5) An integration plan for simulation systems that
enables interoperability and distributed training
involving a mix of manned and unmanned assets.
The committee notes that a report on this topic normally
would not be delivered to the congressional intelligence
committees; however, as this section results, in part, from a
broader review of intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance platforms initiated by the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and as the matters covered by
the report relate to the fielding and use of platforms over
which the congressional intelligence committees also exercise
jurisdiction, the report should be provided to both the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees.
Other Matters
Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium
The committee commends the efforts by the Department of
Defense to reduce, manage and, ultimately eliminate the use of
toxic materials and notes in particular the Department's
efforts to transition to the use of alternatives for hexavalent
chromium for coatings and surface treatments. The committee is
encouraged by recent successful transitions, and supports
continued research and development efforts to identify
acceptable alternatives.
Capital Investment Program
The committee is aware that statutory and regulatory
dollar-value limitations placed on the discretionary authority
of depot and arsenal commanders to carry out renovation and
minor construction capital investment program projects funded
through the Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) have not been
adjusted for inflation. The committee is concerned that these
limitations have degraded the purchasing power of depot and
arsenal installation commanders and may lead to ineffective
utilization of statutorily prescribed capital investments
associated with improvements in depot and arsenal production.
The committee is aware that in fiscal year 2002, section 2805
of title 10, United States Code was amended to increase the
threshold for unspecified military construction projects funded
by the WCF intended solely to correct a deficiency that is
life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening to
$1.5 million. However, the committee believes that an
adjustment for non-safety related projects is warranted.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review
renovation and minor construction project limitations in
statute and regulation and provide formal recommendations on
needed inflation-related adjustments to ensure efficient
operation of Department of Defense maintenance depots,
shipyards, and arsenals. If disparities regarding the exercise
of a depot or arsenal commander's discretionary authority to
carry out renovations or minor new construction exist in
practice between military departments or defense agencies, or
major commands within a military department, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense to identify and
highlight those disparities for the committee. The Under
Secretary of Defense should transmit this information by letter
to the congressional defense committees within 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office
Information Access
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
efforts to begin securing its various online databases and
informational portals, such as Army Knowledge Online. The
committee believes that these steps are a necessary precaution
that will enhance the Department's information security.
However, the committee is also aware that in securing these
resources, the Department has made it more difficult for the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to access the information necessary
to assist Congress in carrying out its oversight
responsibilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to update the necessary rules and regulations and
issue any credentials required for staff members of CBO and GAO
to access departmental information in support of
congressionally directed tasks by September 1, 2012. Further,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit
written notification to the congressional defense committees
certifying the Department's compliance.
Consolidated Guidance for Equipment Retrograde and Disposition
The committee commends the Department of Defense and the
military departments on the progress made toward successful
retrograde of equipment used in support of Operations Iraqi
Freedom and New Dawn. The committee recognizes the significant
challenges associated with the inventory, assessment, and
subsequent transportation of the large amount of equipment used
to support these operations.
However, the committee remains concerned about the overall
level of coordination, oversight, and the processes in place to
guide the remaining retrograde and disposition. In particular,
the committee believes that the military departments may be
unnecessarily retrograding non-enduring mission equipment or
may be disposing of equipment prior to enduring requirements
being fully established. Further, the committee recognizes the
logistical and political challenges associated with the
retrograde of equipment used in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with Secretaries of the military departments
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop department-wide
guidance for the retrograde and disposition of equipment used
in support of operations in the Central Command area of
responsibility. At a minimum, the strategy shall:
(1) Prescribe standard prioritization and disposition
criteria that focus on filling unmet combatant
commander and home-station training requirements with
retrograded equipment;
(2) Provide guidance on the nomination, evaluation,
and acceptance process for non-standard equipment
additions to the military services' equipment
authorization documents and prepositioned stocks; and
(3) Provide disposition guidance to the military
departments for the donation, transfer, or sale of non-
enduring excess equipment only after it is deemed
excess by the Department's process for donation,
transfer and sale of excess equipment.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver
this guidance to the congressional defense committees in
conjunction with the annual budget submission for fiscal year
2014. Further, to enable the committee to provide the necessary
oversight, the committee directs the Department to brief the
congressional defense committees on the guidance within 90 days
after its delivery to Congress.
Contracted Hospitality and Food Services
The committee is concerned about the quality assurance of
contracted food and hospitality services in support of the
military departments. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretaries of the military departments to ensure that
contracted culinary or hospitality services are procured from
vendors utilizing personnel that are professionally trained
through an accredited program in a relevant field by May 1,
2013.
Defense Biometrics
The committee is aware that United States military forces
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and elsewhere rely on
biometrics data, such as fingerprints and iris scans, to
identify enemy combatants and link individuals to events such
as improvised explosive device detonations. A recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled ``Defense
Biometrics: Additional Training for Leaders and More Timely
Transmission of Data Could Enhance the Use of Biometrics in
Afghanistan'' (GAO-12-442) recommended that the Department take
several actions to enhance the effectiveness of its biometrics
activities in ongoing operations, such as:
(1) Expanding leadership training to improve
employment of biometrics collection;
(2) Helping ensure the completeness and accuracy of
transmitted biometrics data;
(3) Determining the viability and cost-effectiveness
of reducing transmission times; and
(4) Evaluating the merits of disseminating biometrics
lessons learned across the Department for the purposes
of informing relevant policies and practices.
The committee believes that biometrics will be an enduring
capability to support future military operations. GAO's
recommendations should be relevant to informing the future of
biometrics development and employment. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing 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, on any actions, taken or proposed, to implement
the recommendations made in GAO-12-442.
Digitization of Defense Media Activity Material
The committee is aware that the Defense Media Activity
(DMA) was established to provide an internal news and media
production organization for Department of Defense (DOD), as
well as to support internal communications operations by
gathering information on DOD policies, programs and priorities.
An important component of DMA is the Defense Imagery Management
Operations Center, which centrally manages current and
historical visual information to support worldwide DOD
communication and operational missions.
The committee is also aware that DMA planned an initiative
in 2011 to digitize its entire inventory of records, along with
the capability to store, process, and disseminate these records
electronically. The committee understands that due to recent
budget constraints, DMA eliminated this requirement. The
committee believes that this digitization effort has the
potential to reduce operating costs and increase the efficiency
for DMA in the long run. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to reevaluate the priority for this initiative and
provide adequate funding for completion.
Disposal of Department of Defense Computers
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
a vast inventory of computers that must be demobilized and
disposed of on an annual basis as they become technologically
obsolete. To the maximum extent practicable, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to dispose of those
computers in the most environmentally responsible manner
possible. This disposal should occur only after ensuring all
sensitive information and components have been removed in an
appropriate manner.
Joint Airborne Hazards Action Plan
The committee continues to be concerned about the long-term
health impact of burn pits on military service members in the
Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the
Republic of Djibouti. In October 2011, the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) released a report regarding Long-Term Health
Consequences of Exposure to Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
IOM concluded that the inability to capture individual exposure
data during a conflict with existing technologies creates a
need for long-term monitoring due to health effects evolving
years after exposure. The committee understands that the
Department of Defense has moved forward on a Joint Airborne
Hazards Action Plan to improve the quality, efficiency, and
effectiveness of post-deployment health services to those
military members with health concerns related to airborne
hazards, and encourages the Department of Defense to proceed
with their components of the joint action plan as expeditiously
as possible.
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.
Section 302--Authorization of Appropriations of Funds for Inactivation
Execution of U.S.S. Enterprise
This section would authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2013 for inactivation execution of the U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN
65) at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of
this Act. The committee notes that inactivation execution is
planned for work in 3 fiscal years, and this section would
provide the contract authority to the Secretary of the Navy to
perform that work. The committee also notes that there is an
additional $203.0 million available in fiscal year 2013 to
support the inactivation of the U.S.S. Enterprise, to include
equipment and material, advance planning, disposal and
recycling, and the terminal offload program.
Subtitle B--Energy and Environmental Provisions
Section 311--Training Range Sustainment Plan and Training Range
Inventory
This section would extend the annual reporting requirement
regarding training range sustainment plans and training range
inventory from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018.
Section 312--Modification of Definition of Chemical Substance
This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15,
United States Code, to add to the exclusions any component of
any article including shot, bullets and other projectiles,
propellants and primers.
Section 313--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.
Section 314--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Procurement of
Alternative Fuel
This section would prohibit the use of funds for the
production or purchase of any alternative fuel if the cost of
producing or purchasing the alternative fuel exceeds the cost
of producing or purchasing a traditional fossil fuel. This
section would also provide an exception for the Secretary of
Defense to purchase limited quantities of alternative fuels to
complete fleet certification of 50/50 alternative fuel blends.
Section 315--Plan on Environmental Exposures to Members of the Armed
Forces
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan for identifying a material solution to measure
environmental exposures to members of the Armed Forces both in
the continental United States and outside of the continental
United States. This section would also direct the Secretary of
Defense to brief the congressional defense committees regarding
this plan.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Section 321--Expansion and Reauthorization of Multi-Trades
Demonstration Project
This section would reauthorize the Multi-Trades
Demonstration Project, a project that increases the pay grade
of an employee who achieves certain skill proficiencies in more
than one field by one grade, and expands its participation to
civilian workers in all military departments.
Section 322--Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair
This section would amend section 2460 of title 10, United
States Code, to refine the definition of depot maintenance.
This section would also exclude nuclear aircraft carrier
refueling, defueling, and concurrent complex overhaul and the
procurement major modifications designed to improve the
performance or safety of a weapons system from the definition
of depot-level maintenance and repair. Further, this section
would amend section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, by
inserting ``in direct support of depot-level maintenance and
repair'' to describe the type of ``associated logistics
capabilities'' covered under section 2464 and would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from delegating the waiver authority
granted under section 2464. This section would also exclude
special access programs from the requirements in section 2464,
and would establish a biennial special access core capability
review and report.
Subtitle D--Readiness
Section 331--Intergovernmental Support Agreements with State and Local
Governments
This section would authorize the Secretary concerned to
enter into intergovernmental support agreements with State or
local governments for the procurement of installation support
services. Procurement of police and fire protection services
are specifically exempt from this authority.
Section 332--Extension and Expansion of Authority To Provide Assured
Business Guarantees to Carriers Participating in Civil Reserve Air
Fleet
This section would amend section 9515 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the authority to provide increased
minimum assured business guarantees to Civil Reserve Air Fleet
carriers providing airlift services to the Department of
Defense. The current authority will expire on December 31,
2015.
Section 333--Expansion and Reauthorization of Pilot Program for
Availability of Working-Capital Funds for Product and Process
Improvements
This section would expand the authorization to use working-
capital funds for expenses directly related to conducting a
pilot program for a product or process improvement to the
Secretaries of the military departments.
Section 334--Center of Excellence for the National Guard State
Partnership Program
This section would amend chapter 5 of title 32, United
States Code, by authorizing the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau to maintain a Center of Excellence for the National
Guard State Partnership Program to provide training
opportunities for units and members of the regular and reserve
components for the purpose of improving the skills for such
units and members when deployed to complete the mission of the
State Partnership Program.
Subtitle E--Reports
Section 341--Report on Joint Strategy for Readiness and Training in a
C4ISR-Denied Environment
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the readiness of the joint force to conduct
operations in environments where there is no access to Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. This section also would
require the development of a C4ISR-denied environment roadmap
and exercise plan.
Section 342--Comptroller General Review of Annual Department of Defense
Report on Prepositioned Materiel and Equipment
This section would modify the frequency in which the
Comptroller General of the United States submits its report on
the Department of Defense's prepositioned stocks from 120 days
after the Department submits its annual report on prepositioned
stocks to a rate that the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
Section 343--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 344--Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General Report on
Department of Defense Service Contract Inventory
This section would amend section 803 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) to extend from 180 to 270 days the requirement for the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report
regarding the Department of Defense contract inventory.
Section 345--GAO Report Reviewing Methodology of Department of Defense
Relating to Costs of Performance by Civilian Employees, Military
Personnel, and Contractors
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to prepare a report to assess the Department of
Defense Directive-Type Memorandum 09-007 entitled ``Estimating
and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower
and Contractor Support'' and determine whether the methodology
employed is accurate. The report shall be submitted no later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services.
Section 346--Report on Medical Evacuation Policies
This section would require a report from the Secretary of
Defense on the policies, procedures, and guidelines of the
Department of Defense for helicopter evacuation of injured
members of the Armed Forces.
Subtitle F--Limitations and Extensions of Authority
Section 351--Repeal of Authority To Provide Certain Military Equipment
and Facilities To Support Civilian Law Enforcement and Emergency
Response
This section would amend section 372 of title 10, United
States Code, to ensure Department of Defense support to a
Federal, State, or local law enforcement or emergency response
agency to prepare for or respond to an emergency involving
chemical or biological agents, is consistent with the national
preparedness system and other statutory changes made since the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 352--Limitation on Availability of Funds for the
Disestablishment of Aerospace Control Alert Locations
This section would limit the funds authorized to be
appropriated to disestablish 2 of the 18 Aerospace Control
Alert locations. This section would also establish a
consolidated budget exhibit for the Aerospace Control Alert
mission. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees that provides a cost-benefit analysis and a risk-
based assessment of Aerospace Control Alert mission; and then
have the Comptroller General of the United States assess the
Secretary's report.
Section 353--Limitation on Authorization of Appropriations for the
National Museum of the United States Army
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds for the National Museum of the United States Army until
the Secretary of the Army submits to the congressional defense
committees written certification that sufficient private
funding has been raised to fund construction of the ``baseline
museum'' and that at least 50 percent of the baseline museum
has been completed.
Section 354--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement or
Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2013 for the retirement, inactivation, or
storage of a cruiser or dock landing ship. This section would
provide an exception for the retirement of the U.S.S. Port
Royal (CG 73). Finally, this section would require the
Secretary of the Navy to maintain the operational capability
and perform the necessary maintenance of the cruisers and dock
landing ships in support of operational requirements of the
combatant commands.
Section 355--Renewal of Expired Prohibition on Return of Veterans
Memorial Objects without Specific Authorization in Law
This section would amend section 2572 of title 10, United
States Code, and prohibit the President from transferring a
veterans memorial object to a foreign country unless the
transfer is specifically authorized by law or the transfer is
made after September 30, 2017.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 361--Retirement, Adoption, Care, and Recognition of Military
Working Dogs
This section would amend section 2583 of title 10, United
States Code, to change the classification of military working
dogs from equipment to canine members of the Armed Forces. This
section would also require non-profit provided veterinary care
for retired working dogs and establish policies to ease the
cost of transporting retired working dogs for the purposes of
adoption.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense has determined that the current
force structure and size of the Armed Forces can be reduced to
meet the defense strategic guidance, ``Sustaining U.S. Global
Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,'' published in
January 2012. This guidance, coupled with the proposed cuts in
the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), has led the
military services to alter their force structure and reduce end
strengths.
The budget request reduces the end strengths of the Active
and Reserve Components by 31,300 service members, with an
additional reduction of 92,600 service members over an
additional 4 years. The committee is concerned with the pace of
the proposed reductions and the impact it will have on national
security, while the United States is engaged in ongoing
contingency operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and also required to maintain a robust global security posture.
The Army and the Marine Corps will make the largest
reductions over the next 5 years of 72,000 and 20,000
respectively from their fiscal year 2012 authorization levels.
The end strength reductions proposed in the fiscal year 2012
budget request, which had no reductions in the Army or Marine
Corps until 2015, have been discarded to begin reductions in
fiscal year 2013 in order to comply with required funding
levels in the Budget Control Act. A particular concern is the
Administration's plan to fund additional end strength (above
the fiscal year 2017 end state levels) for the Army (49,700)
and Marine Corps (15,200) in the overseas contingency
operations funding beginning in fiscal year 2013. If the
Administration subsequently decides to accelerate troop
withdrawals in Afghanistan, the overseas contingency operations
funding could be dramatically reduced. This would force the
Army and Marine Corps to accelerate manpower reductions or fund
the personnel from other accounts.
The committee is also concerned with the reductions in the
Reserve Components. The services have relied heavily on their
respective Reserve Components over the past 10 years of
conflict and have embraced the operational reserve as a
practice versus a concept. It is imperative the Active and
Reserve Components work together as a total force to maintain
the All-Volunteer Force. The committee believes that the
Reserve Components must be an operational reserve, mobilized
periodically for real-world operational missions to maintain
and sustain the level of skills and competence so that they are
capable of responding to crises or combat requirements. To
achieve this objective, the committee supports sustaining a
robust and viable force structure mix between the Active and
Reserves to ensure the dwell time goals of 1 to 3 for Active
and 1 to 5 for Reserves are met during peace and war.
Notwithstanding the fiscal pressures on the Department of
Defense, the committee strongly encourages the services, in
conjunction with their Reserve Components, to conduct a
rigorous analysis of the Reserve force structure and end
strengths to ensure the appropriate capabilities are nested in
both the Active and Reserve force structure. The goal is to
ensure the Total Force will be able to execute the requirements
of the Combatant Commands, as well as meet the Federal and
State homeland security and natural disaster requirements as
part of our National Security Strategy. The Reserve Component
has become an integral partner in maintaining a robust global
security posture. Without the operational reserve, the Nation
would have faced extreme challenges maintaining the All-
Volunteer Force during 10 years of war. The committee believes
it is critical the experienced gained in the Reserve Component
is maintained and not lost due to fiscal constraints.
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, 2013:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
-----------------------------------------------
Service FY 2012 Commmitte
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2013 FY 2012
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................... 562,000 552,100 552,100 0 -9,900
Navy............................................... 325,700 322,700 322,700 0 -3,000
USMC............................................... 202,100 197,300 197,300 0 -4,800
Air Force.......................................... 332,800 328,900 330,383 1,483 -3,340
------------------------------------------------------------
DOD............................................ 1,422,600 1,401,000 1,401,560 1,483 -21,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee recommends an increase in end strengths to
reflect the corresponding manpower requirements to maintain 18
Air Force Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks and the committee's
limitation on retiring, divesting or transferring any aircraft
assigned to the Air Force. The committee also notes the Navy
end strength is approximately 5,000 less than the fiscal year
2012 authorized end strength of 325,700 and is projected to end
the year at the current level. This is a drastic change from
the fiscal year 2012 budget plan and what was submitted and
briefed to Congress for the fiscal year 2013 budget. The
committee is concerned about the Navy's ability to properly
manage its manpower requirements. Over the past several years,
the Navy has been over its authorized end strength levels,
particularly within its officer corps, by several thousand and
executed drastic force shaping measures in fiscal year 2012 to
ensure that they were in compliance. As a result, the Navy took
more reductions than were necessary for budget saving measures,
involuntarily forcing enlisted sailors out of the Navy.
Although the committee authorizes the President's request for
the Navy's end strength for fiscal year 2013, the committee is
doubtful of the Navy's ability to reverse course and meet this
increased authorization level. As such, the committee believes
an additional 1,008 sailors to maintain 3 Cruisers in fiscal
year 2013 is not needed based on current manning levels.
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, 2013. The committee recommends 552,100 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 322,700 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 197,300 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
330,383 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air
Force.
Section 403--Limitations on End Strength Reductions for Regular
Component of the Army and Marine Corps
This section would limit the end strength reductions for
the Regular Component of the Army to no more than 15,000
members per year, and for the Regular Component of the Marine
Corps to no more than 5,000 members per year between fiscal
years 2014-17. In addition, if the President determines a
reduction in end strength of the Regular Component of the Army
or Marine Corps (or both) is necessary, this section would
require the President to submit an annual certification with
the budget request that the reduction will not: undermine the
ability of the Armed Forces to meet the requirements of the
National Security Strategy; increase security risks for the
United States; or compel members of the Armed Forces to endure
diminished dwell time and repeated deployments. This section
also would require that the Department of Defense budget
request include amounts for the end strength of the regular
component of the Army and the Marine Corps in the base budget
and not through emergency, supplemental, or overseas
contingency operations funds.
Section 404--Exclusion of Members within the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System from End Strength Levels for Active Forces
This section would exclude a member of the Armed Forces who
is within the Integrated Disability Evaluation System as of the
last day of any fiscal year from 2013 through 2018 from
counting toward the end strength levels for Active Duty members
of the Armed Forces prescribed for that fiscal year. This
section would require that the funding for this population be
paid from the overseas contingency operations account.
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, 2013:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
-------------------------------------------
Service FY 2012 Commmitte
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2013 FY 2012
mendation 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............................................ 66,200 62,500 62,500 0 -3,700
Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0
Air National Guard...................................... 106,700 101,600 106,005 4,405 -5,100
Air Force Reserve....................................... 71,400 70,500 72,428 1,928 -900
-------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total........................................... 847,100 837,400 843,733 6,333 -9,700
Coast Guard Reserve..................................... 10,000 9,000 9,000 0 -1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's increase to the President's FY13 budget
request reflects the corresponding manpower requirements for
the committee's limitation on retiring, divesting or
transferring any aircraft assigned to the Air Force.
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, 2013:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
-------------------------------------------
Service FY 2012 Commmitte
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2013 FY 2012
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard..................................... 32,060 32,060 32,060 0 0
Army Reserve............................................ 16,261 16,277 16, 277 0 16
Naval Reserve........................................... 10,337 10,114 10,114 0 -223
Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard...................................... 14,833 14,305 14,952 647 -528
Air Force Reserve....................................... 2,662 2,888 2,888 0 226
-------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total........................................... 78,414 77,905 78,552 647 -509
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's increase to the President's FY13 budget
request reflects the corresponding manpower requirements for
the committee's limitation on retiring, divesting or
transferring any aircraft assigned to the Air Force.
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,
2013:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
-------------------------------------------
Service FY 2012 Commmitte
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2013 FY 2012
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard..................................... 27,210 28,380 27,210 -1,170 0
Army Reserve............................................ 8,395 8,445 8,395 -50 0
Air National Guard...................................... 22,509 21,101 22,272 1,171 -1,408
Air Force Reserve....................................... 10,777 10,283 10,946 663 -494
-------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total........................................... 68,891 68,209 68,823 614 -1,902
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section would establish limits for fiscal year 2013 on
the number of dual status technicians authorized for the
Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force. The budget
request included an increase in the statutory limit on dual
status technicians for the Army Reserve by 50 members and the
Army National Guard by 1,170 members. Although the committee is
supportive of the operational reserve and believes that there
are requirements for increases in full time support, the
committee cannot support an increase in the number of
technicians at this time. In the committee report (H. Rept.
110-652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee directed
the Secretary of the Army to review the projected 5-year
requirements for the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve
full-time manning and implement a plan to increase full time
manning in both those components. The committee has yet to
receive the review and the implementation plan from this
directive. After several field visits and meetings with the
Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, the committee
believes it is best to take a comprehensive approach to the
full-time manning of the operational reserve rather than
piecemeal which has been the case over the past 5 years. The
committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to conclude the
review and provide a comprehensive full time support
implementation plan to the committee. The committee's increase
to the President's FY13 budget request reflects the
corresponding manpower requirements for the committee's
limitation on retiring, divesting or transferring any aircraft
assigned to the Air Force.
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2013 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, 2013:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Change from
-------------------------------------------
Service FY 2012 Commmitte
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2013 FY 2012
mendation 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 2013 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 2013 Change from
-------------------------------------------
Service FY 2012 Commmitte
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2013 FY 2012
mendation 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 has taken a number of initiatives in this
title that address major issues of concern.
In the area of general service authorities, the committee
authorized additional behavioral health professionals to
conduct pre-separation medical exams for post-traumatic stress
disorder. To improve the process for accounting for missing
persons, the committee authorized the Department of Defense to
accept voluntary services from non-Department of Defense
entities. With regard to expanding the roles of women in the
military services, the committee required the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report on the feasibility of developing
gender neutral performance standards
In the area of military justice the committee directed the
Secretary of Defense to make changes to policy or the Manual
for Courts-Martial that would require the special court-martial
convening authority to administer the process for handling
cases of rape and sexual assault. Under the policy, no
commander below colonel or Navy captain could administer
justice for those offenses. The committee also directed the
Secretaries of the military services to establish special
victim teams. These teams comprised of specially trained
investigators, prosecutors, and victim witness support
personnel, would be available to deal with the offenses of
child abuse, serious domestic violence and sexual offenses. In
addition, the committee would require a briefing,
recommendations and a plan to improve the way the military
services address hazing.
To assist the transition of service members out of the
Armed Forces, the committee transferred the Troops to Teachers
program from the Department of Education to the Department of
Defense, and expanded the eligibility to service members with
four years of active service rather than the six years of
service required under current law.
To improve family readiness, the committee authorized $30
million to support local educational activities heavily
impacted by dependents of military families, and the committee
provided statutory protection for child custody arrangements
for parents who are members of the Armed Forces. That provision
is to ensure that deployed service members do not lose custody
simply on the basis that a parent with custody was deployed.
Finally, the committee acted to preserve the editorial
independence of the Stars and Stripes military publications by
requiring that the Stars and Stripes staff remain in its
current leased location until such time as the Department of
Defense can find no-cost government office space that is
geographically removed from the Defense Media Activity at Fort
Meade, Maryland.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assistance for Service Members Transitioning to the Civilian Sector
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) provided the Secretaries of the military
departments the authority to establish apprenticeship programs
to prepare service members for employment in the civilian
sector. The committee is aware of the high unemployment rate
for veterans, particularly younger veterans who have recently
left the military service. The committee strongly supports
programs that assists service members in gaining apprenticeship
training so that they can successfully enter the workforce with
a defined skill set. The committee encourages the Secretaries
of the military departments to provide information on such
transition programs to both service members, the private
sector, including contractors that support the Department of
Defense and other entities to improve awareness and increase
the availability of apprenticeship opportunities for
transitioning service members. The committee also urges the
Secretaries of the military departments to consider
establishing a transitional support program that would fast-
track service members into civilian positions, particularly in
the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Award of Prisoner-of-War Medal to Service Members Held at Wauwilermoos,
Switzerland
The committee understands that during World War II, airmen
who were forced to make emergency landings in the Swiss
Confederation were interned under generous circumstances, some
in hotels, and given strict instructions not to attempt to
escape in order for Switzerland to maintain neutrality. Some
service members who attempted to escape were transferred to
Wauwilermoos. There, as documentation available to the
Secretary of the Air Force substantiates, Air Force internees
were held under extremely inhumane conditions.
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 review the
rationale for awarding the prisoner-of-war medal to some
Wauwilermoos internees and not to others, and to provide a
written summary of the review and its conclusions to the House
Committee on Armed Services. The report concluded that since
Switzerland remained neutral during World War II, it was not a
foreign armed force that was hostile to the United States, and
therefore, service members interned at Wauwilermoos did not
meet the qualifying criterion of the medal. The report also
concluded that the decision to award the prisoner-of-war medal
to some Wauwilermoos internees was a mistake, but it does not
appear that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the
Air Force took any action to revoke the awards.
The committee believes that all Wauwilermoos internees
should have been treated in a similar fashion and awarded the
prisoner-of-war medal. Elsewhere in this title, the committee
includes a provision that would amend section 1128 of title 10,
United States Code, to remove the statutory language on which
denials have been based. Further, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to award the prisoner-of war medal
to all Air Force internees held at Wauwilermoos within 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Biometric Identification for Recruiting
The committee commends the Department of the Army for its
innovative use of biometric identification equipment to conduct
moral background checks during the initial stages in the
recruiting process, which saves valuable time and resources
before the recruit processes into the Army at the Military
Entrance Process Stations (MEPS). Fielding biometric
capabilities enables the Department of Defense to rapidly
verify the backgrounds of recruits to ensure they are
commensurate with the high standard of military service prior
to final enlistment. There is often a lengthy time period
between when the recruit signs an enlistment contract and
processes through the MEPS, creating a delay for background
verification and potentially wasted time and resources for the
recruiter, if the result is a negative background check. The
Army's Early Background Check Program allows recruiters at
almost all Army recruiting locations to conduct the
verification process early to ensure their efforts are focused
on qualified candidates. Although all the military services use
electronic fingerprint capture at the MEPS to initiate
background checks prior to final acceptance into the military,
the committee believes there is value for the Secretary of
Defense to consider the feasibility of expanding the Army's
program to all the military services.
Comptroller General Review of the Secretary of Defense's Efforts To
Increase the Capability and Capacity of the Department of Defense to
Account for Missing Persons
The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense's
efforts to increase the effectiveness, integration, capability,
and capacity to account for missing persons has not complied
with section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). To date, the Department
of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Prisoners of
War, Missing in Action Accounting Command (JPAC), and the
military service organizations have been unable to work
together to achieve a unified, synchronized program. Rather,
the committee notes that the effort to account for missing
persons is being hampered by what appears to be an inter-agency
dispute between the major accounting organizations, the Defense
Prisoners of War/Missing Personnel Office and JPAC. The
committee believes that a lack of oversight by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff is a contributing
factor to the current situation and must be improved upon in
the future.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the Secretary of
Defense's efforts to significantly increase the capability and
capacity of the Department of Defense to account for missing
persons in accordance with section 1509 of title 10, United
States Code. The Comptroller General should report the findings
and recommendations of the review to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
June 1, 2013. The review should include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(1) An assessment of any guidance provided by the
Secretary of Defense to implement the program required
by section 1509 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) An assessment of the process used by the
Department of Defense to determine the proper funds,
personnel and resources required to implement a program
involving all elements of the accounting command; to
increase the integration and coordination of the
accounting effort; to expand the capability and
capacity of the Department of Defense to achieve the
requirement to account for 200 missing persons annually
by 2015; and whether the current plans within the
accounting community are being implemented in a manner
to accomplish the goal for annual accounting of missing
persons.
(3) An assessment of the structure of the POW/MIA
accounting community, as defined in section 1509(b)(2)
of title 10, United States Code, to include the command
relationships in-and-between the organizations; whether
those command relationships constitute the most
efficient organizational structure to effectively and
efficiently accomplish the POW/MIA accounting mission;
and whether there are duplicate efforts within the
organizations in the POW/MIA accounting community which
can be consolidated or eliminated in order to create
efficiencies and continuity.
(4) Recommendations to improve the accounting effort,
including any recommended legislation required to
improve the effectiveness, integration, and capability
to account for missing persons.
Department of Defense Outreach Efforts to Increase the Hiring of
Wounded Warriors
The committee commends the Department of Defense for their
efforts to assist in the transition of wounded warriors into
civilian positions within Federal agencies, Congress, and the
private sector. The committee encourages the Department to
continue its outreach efforts, and to include State and local
governments that may be interested in hiring wounded warriors.
Fair Treatment for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Service
Members
The committee is concerned that the value of highly
experienced Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve service
members will not be taken into consideration during the
reduction of force structure and change in unit missions
announced with the release of the budget request. The committee
believes that every effort should be explored to retain service
members by instituting robust reassignment and retraining
initiatives. In those cases where service members cannot be
retained in an Active Duty status, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force, before the first of those
involuntary separations is executed, to examine the process by
which service members are separated and the package of benefits
made available to them. The committee believes that service
members' length of service should be considered and that the
welfare of service members and families are protected, to
include special attention to health care and educational
benefits. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air
Force to inform the Secretary of Defense and Congress of any
legislative proposals that may be required to remedy
deficiencies in the separation benefits package being provided
to Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve service members.
Increased Flexibility of Military Families to Choose Enrollment of
their Dependents in Local Educational Agencies
The committee recognizes that the availability of a quality
public education for children is an important quality-of-life
factor for service members and their families, and that
concerns about the availability and quality of elementary and
secondary education options impact readiness, job satisfaction,
and retention of military personnel. A majority of the children
of military personnel attend a school administered by a local
educational agency near the military installation where one or
both of their parents are assigned. Military families are
typically reassigned every 3 years and have little choice in
their assignments. The average military child will move six to
nine times during their K-12 school career, which is three
times more often than the average non-military child. Family
mobility creates a variety of challenges for military families
seeking a quality education.
While the committee is encouraged by State and school
district adoption of inter-district and intra-district policies
that allow greater flexibility to service members in choosing
schools for their children, research conducted by the American
Institutes for Research in 2011 for the Department of Defense
demonstrates that a significant percentage of military families
still reside in districts that do not allow the family to
choose a regular public school through inter- or intra-district
transfer programs. Rather, these families are assigned schools
by geographic default, even when other school district
boundaries are near the base or multiple school boundaries
overlap onto the base. This is particularly troubling for
military families who reside on military installations and are
assigned to schools that have been identified as being in need
of improvement. The committee notes that the lack of
flexibility available to military families when selecting
public school assignments negatively impacts morale, readiness,
and retention of military personnel.
The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense
to identify the school districts with substantial on-base
military dependent populations, such as those receiving impact
aid from the Department of Education or from the Department of
Defense or other bases, that have not implemented inter- or
intra-district transfer programs. Furthermore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act on an action plan for
providing better educational equity, opportunity and
flexibility for military families residing on military
installations in those districts. The plan should identify the
greatest problem areas and provide recommended courses of
action.
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
The committee notes that the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417)
required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretaries of the military departments, to develop and
implement a plan to increase the number of Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) units to not less than 3,700
by September 30, 2020. There are approximately 3,459 JROTC
units currently being supported by the military services. The
committee understands that given the constraints of the current
fiscal environment, the services are reassessing their plans to
reach the required number of units. However, the committee
remains committed to the goal of not less than 3,700 total
JROTC units by 2020, and awaits the Secretary of Defense's
report on any modifications to the services' plans to reach the
required number of units.
In addition, the committee is interested in how the
authority requested by the Department of Defense to allow the
services to provide arms, tentage, and equipment to schools
without a JROTC unit with at least 50 students who are in the
grade above the eighth grade may impact the ability of the
services to support an end state of 3,700 JROTC units.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act on how a change in the
authority will balance the demands for resources between the
JROTC units and other institutions without an official JROTC
unit. The briefing should also provide any change to the
mandate to achieve 3,700 JROTC units by 2020, if the proposed
authority is enacted.
Marketing and Advertising for Recruiting
The committee recognizes the importance of using marketing
and advertising, such as motorsports and extreme sports
sponsorship, for the purposes of recruiting qualified youth to
serve in the military and to maintain a positive presence with
influencers. Without this ability, the military services may be
faced with challenges recruiting qualified youth when economic
conditions are favorable for employment in the civilian
workforce. The committee encourages the service secretaries to
ensure proper resources are applied to marketing and
advertising programs essential to maintaining the All-Volunteer
Force.
Military Technician (Dual Status)
The committee continues to have concerns with the
management of the military technician (dual status) workforce
and encourages the secretaries concerned to ensure that
military technicians (dual status) understand the requirements
of their employment, and the benefits and entitlements
available to them as military technicians (dual status),
including their rights before the Qualitative Retention Board
and Selective Retention Boards. The committee also encourages
the leadership of the Reserve Components to ensure the use and
management of military technicians (dual status) is consistent
with the laws, policies, and regulations governing military
technicians (dual status).
Private John Sipe Medal of Honor Review
The committee is aware that for nearly 10 years the
Department of Defense has been reviewing the request to award
the Medal of Honor to Private John A. Sipe, Company I of the
205th Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, United States Army, for
his bravery at the Battle of Fort Stedman during the Civil War.
Private Sipe showed inspirational leadership and gallantry by
fearlessly charging the rebel lines and subsequently capturing
the rebel flag.
The committee is aware that the Army recommended Private
Sipe be awarded the Medal of Honor in 2009. The committee is
disappointed with the protracted amount of time the Department
of Defense has taken to review the Medal of Honor request and
urges the Department to complete its review in a timely manner
and report its findings back to the committee.
Recognition for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Pilots
The Committee recognizes the important contributions
remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilots have made in the
theaters of operation. RPA pilots are crucial to missions
overseas, flying some of the military's important weapons
systems such as the MQ-1 and MQ-9. Their efforts have led to
the collection of important intelligence by carrying out
missions that would otherwise be too dangerous for manned
aircraft. Their role in supporting the war fighters with
precision fire support and high endurance surveillance is
invaluable. Since the deployment of remotely piloted aircrafts
into combat zones, they have proven to be a crucial component
in the War on Terror. RPA pilots have supported their fellow
war fighters in hazardous situations, both in the conduct of
day-to-day activities, as well as special operations. The RPA
mission has allowed service members to better execute their
military missions, and has aided in the capturing or killing of
many high value targets. The committee encourages the
Secretaries of the military departments to properly recognize
these pilots for their contributions and accomplishments. In
particular, the committee is concerned that RPA pilots may not
have fair and equal opportunities for promotion as compared to
their manned aircraft pilot counterparts and urges the services
to continue to review and improve their policies to address
this issue.
Recognition for the Surviving Children of Those Who Die While Serving
Our Nation
Over 6,400 service members have made the ultimate sacrifice
while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi
Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. While each and every loss is
painfully heartbreaking, it is particularly hard for the
hundreds of children who are now bereft of their father or
mother. The committee recognizes their tragic loss, and
recommends that the Secretary of Defense consider awarding
these children a token of appreciation for their sacrifice,
such as a Gold Medal of Remembrance.
Report on Metrics To Track Sexual Assault
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
developed a centralized, case-level database for documenting
reported cases of sexual assault that became initially
operational on March 30, 2012, and is expected to be fully
operational by August 2012. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary
of Defense to continue to provide the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services with reports
on the status of the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
and the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database until the
Secretary certifies that both systems are fully functional and
operational. The committee further notes that the Government
Accountability Office has made a number of recommendations that
address the development and implementation of the Defense
Sexual Assault Incident Database. Accordingly, not earlier than
1 year following certification by the Secretary of Defense, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct a review of the Defense Sexual Assault Incident
Database to ensure that the appropriate metrics and data are
being gathered to allow for greater transparency and assessment
of sexual assault within the Department of Defense. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General to complete
the review and provide a report on the findings to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services within 545 days after the date of the certification by
the Secretary of Defense.
Robust Diversity Outreach Efforts for Officer Accessions
It is important that recruitment and retention policies and
programs ensure that a wide-range of communities across the
United States are captured to provide the Services a large pool
of well-qualified, diverse candidates to consider. To address
this issue, the committee encourages the Services to provide
resources and personnel to ensure robust diversity outreach
efforts for officer accessions so that each Service has access
to qualified diverse individuals for initial development of
officers. This critical investment will allow the Services to
identify the best and brightest for our military and for
America's future.
Support for Naval Heritage Initiatives
The committee urges the Department of the Navy to support
initiatives that honor and recognize U.S. naval heritage.
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
The committee recognizes the Department of Defense
continues to improve its efforts to assist military personnel
successfully transition from the military to civilian life. The
committee applauds the National Guard and Reserve Components
for its implementation and enhancement of the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program. The Office for Reintegration Programs
has made significant strides in working with States to assist
in the development of outreach programs for members of the
Armed Forces and their families. This has been invaluable for
informing and educating members of the National Guard and the
Reserve Components on the services and assistance available to
them to ensure that the Nation fulfills its promise to the All-
Volunteer Force. However, the committee is concerned that there
are still gaps in transition from the Department of Defense to
the Department of Veterans Affairs that impacts service members
and their families, many of whom are simply unaware of the
numerous services and assistance programs provided by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Further, the men and women who are most susceptible to
falling victim to the inadequacies of the transition from the
Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs are
oftentimes the most ``at-risk'' veterans. In addition, the
committee believes that there are transitioning Active Duty
service members who may benefit from the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act on the feasibility of expanding access
and outreach to transitioning Active Duty service members into
the latter phases of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
The briefing should also address the ability of the Office for
Reintegration Programs to work with the Department of Defense,
the States, and Department of Veterans Affairs regional offices
to contact service members and veterans returning from Active
Duty, and discuss any initiatives necessary that may improve
information sharing between the agencies, and awareness of
transitioning and returning veterans at the outreach execution
level within communities.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally
Section 501--Limitation on Number of Navy Flag Officers on Active Duty
This section would eliminate the exemption for the Director
of the Nurse Corps and the Director of the Medical Service
Corps from counting against the statutory limits on Navy flag
officers on Active Duty.
Section 502--Exception to Required Retirement After 30 Years of Service
for Regular Navy Warrant Officers in the Grade of Chief Warrant
Officer, W-5
This section would increase from 30 years to 33 years the
total active military service a Navy warrant officer in the
grade of chief warrant officer, W-5, may serve prior to being
statutorily retired for length of service.
Section 503--Air Force Chief and Deputy Chief of Chaplains
This section would establish the positions of Chief of
Chaplains and Deputy Chief of Chaplains in the Air Force in
statute. This section would replace the Air Force's current
central selection process for the Chief of Chaplains, which is
restrictive, with a process similar to that used for the
selection of Staff Judge Advocates General of the military
services. This section would also allow candidates in the grade
of colonel and above to be considered for selection.
Section 504--Extension of Temporary Authority To Reduce Minimum Length
of Active Service as a Commissioned Officer Required for Voluntary
Retirement as an Officer
This section would continue the authority for the
Secretaries of the military departments to reduce from 10 to 8
years, the amount of commissioned service required for a
service member to retire as an officer. The expiration of the
authority would be extended from September 30, 2013, to
September 30, 2018.
Section 505--Temporary Increase in the Time-in-Grade Retirement Waiver
Limitation for Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels in the Army, Air Force,
and Marine Corps and Commanders and Captains in the Navy
This section would create a temporary discretionary
authority for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments to retire in their current grades up
to 4 percent of the total population of officers in the grades
of O-5 and O-6 within each service, even though the officers do
not possess 3 years service-in-grade. The limit under current
law is 2 percent. The authority would expire September 30,
2018.
Section 506--Modification to Limitations on Number of Officers for Whom
Service-In-Grade Requirements May Be Reduced for Retirement in Grade
Upon Voluntary Retirement
This section would create a temporary discretionary
authority for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments to retire in their current grades up
to 5 percent, or 10 percent in the case of the Marine Corps, of
their total population of officers in the grades of 0-7 and 0-
8, even though the officers do not possess 3 years service-in-
grade. The limit under current law is 2 percent. The authority
would expire September 30, 2017.
Section 507--Diversity in Military Leadership and Related Reporting
Requirements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement a plan to measure the efforts of the
Department to achieve a diverse leadership that reflects the
population of the United States. The Secretary would also be
required to include information on progress in implementing the
plan and additional demographic data in the Department of
Defense Manpower Requirements report.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Section 511--Codification of Staff Assistant Positions for Joint Staff
Related to National Guard and Reserve Matters
This section would repeal section 901 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85) and make the provisions of that section part of title 10,
United States Code. This section would also amend the language
of the new section in title 10 by requiring the assistants to
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have significant
joint duty experience, as determined by the Chairman, and that
the assistants be included in the limited exclusions for joint
duty assignments, under section 526(b) of title 10, United
States Code.
Section 512--Automatic Federal Recognition of Promotion of Certain
National Guard Warrant Officers
This section would automatically confer Federal recognition
on members of the National Guard who are promoted from the
grade of warrant officer 1, W-1, to chief warrant officer 2, W-
2.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Section 521--Modifications to Career Intermission Pilot Program
This section would expand the population eligible for the
Career Intermission Pilot Program to include Reserve Component
members serving on Active Duty. This section would also
authorize service members to retain their earned leave balance
as well as to go through processing for disability separation
while participating in the program.
Section 522--Authority for Additional Behavioral Health Professionals
to Conduct Pre-Separation Medical Exams for Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder
This section would authorize licensed clinical social
workers and psychiatric nurse practitioners to conduct pre-
administrative separation medical examinations to determine if
the service member suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder,
a factor that should be considered by the service member's
commander prior to administrative separation.
Section 523--Authority to Accept Voluntary Services to Assist
Department of Defense Efforts To Account for Missing Persons
This section would amend section 1501(a)(6) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
accept gratuitous or voluntary services in circumstances in
which the Secretary deems that such services may assist in
accounting for missing personnel.
Section 524--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 525--Command Responsibility and Accountability for Remains of
Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Who Die Outside
the United States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that there is a continuous military command
responsibility and accountability for the remains of each
deceased member of the military services who died outside of
the United States.
Section 526--Report on Feasibility of Developing Gender-Neutral
Occupational Standards for Military Occupational Specialties Currently
Closed to Women
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees within 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the
feasibility of incorporating gender-neutral occupational
standards for military occupational specialties closed to
female members of the Armed Forces.
Section 527--Compliance with Medical Profiles Issued for Members of the
Armed Forces
The section would require the Secretary of a military
department to ensure commanding officers do not prohibit or
restrict the ability of physicians to issue a medical profile
and to comply with the terms of the medical profile for the
member of the armed forces.
Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Matters
Section 531--Clarification and Enhancement of the Role of Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps
This section would authorize the Staff Judge Advocate to
the Commandant of the Marine Corps to supervise the
administration of justice and delivery of legal assistance
within the Marine Corps; provide professional supervision over
all judge advocates of the Marine Corps; and establish a direct
relationship with the Secretary of the Navy.
Section 532--Persons Who May Exercise Disposition Authority Regarding
Charges Involving Certain Sexual Misconduct Offenses Under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
implement a policy to have the Secretaries of the military
departments withhold disposition authority under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice for certain sexual offenses under
sections 920, 925 and 880 of title 10, United States Code. The
policy required by this section would establish that the
disposition authority in such cases would be no lower than the
special court-martial convening authority, who holds the grade
of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, the grade of captain,
who has a legal advisor and is in the chain of command of the
person accused of committing the offense. This section would
not preclude the general court-martial convening authority from
acting in lieu of the special court-martial convening
authority, nor would this section preclude other offenses
related to the alleged sexual offenses from being considered by
the special court-martial convening authority.
Section 533--Independent Review and Assessment of Uniform Code of
Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of Sexual Assault Cases
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish an independent panel to conduct a review and
assessment of judicial proceedings under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice involving sexual assault and related offenses
in order to develop potential improvements in such proceedings.
Authority for the panel would expire September 30, 2017.
Section 534--Collection and Retention of Records on Disposition of
Reports of Sexual Assault
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to establish a record on the disposition of sexual
assaults and retain the records for at least 20 years.
Section 535--Briefing, Plan, and Recommendations Regarding Efforts To
Prevent and Respond to Hazing Incidents Involving Members of the Armed
Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 2013, on the plan to
establish the Department of Defense effort to prevent hazing in
the Armed Forces, and to respond to and resolve alleged hazing
incidents. This section would also require the Secretary to
provide recommendations for changes to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial to improve
the prosecution of hazing incidents as part of the briefing. In
addition, this section would require the Secretary to establish
a database to determine the extent to which hazing incidents
are occurring and the nature of such incidents, as well as to
track, respond to, and resolve hazing incidents involving
members of the Armed Forces.
Section 536--Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed
Forces and Chaplains of Such Members
This section would require the Armed Forces to accommodate
the moral principles and religious beliefs of service members
concerning appropriate and inappropriate expression of human
sexuality and that such beliefs may not be used as a basis for
any adverse personnel actions. This section would establish the
responsibility of chaplains to provide for the spiritual needs
of their faith group and comply with the tenets of their faith
while facilitating the religious needs of all service members.
This section would also prohibit any member of the Armed Forces
from (1) requiring a chaplain to perform any duty or religious
ceremony that is contrary to the tenets of the chaplain's
conscience, moral principles, religious beliefs or the tenets
of the chaplain's religious faith, or (2) discriminating or
taking any adverse personnel action against a chaplain because
of a refusal to comply with a direction to perform a duty or
religious ceremony that is contrary to the tenets of the
chaplain's conscience, moral principles, religious beliefs or
the tenets of the chaplain's religious faith.
Section 537--Use of Military Installations as Sites for Marriage
Ceremonies or Marriage-Like Ceremonies
This section would preclude marriage and marriage-like
ceremonies from being conducted on military installations or
other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the
control of the Department of Defense, unless the ceremony
involves the union of one man with one woman.
Subtitle E--Member Education and Training Opportunities and
Administration
Section 541--Transfer of Troops-to-Teachers Program from Department of
Education to Department of Defense and Enhancements to the Program
This section would transfer responsibility and authority
for operation and administration of the Troops to Teachers
Program from the Department of Education to the Department of
Defense.
Section 542--Support of Naval Academy Athletic and Physical Fitness
Programs
This section would amend chapter 603 of title 10, United
States Code, to grant the Secretary of the Navy authority to
enter into a collaborative agreement with the Naval Academy
Athletic Association in support of the United States Naval
Academy's athletic and physical fitness programs.
Section 543--Department of Defense Inspector General Review of Access
to Military Installations by Representatives of For-Profit Educational
Institutions
This section would require the Department of Defense
Inspector General to conduct a review to determine the extent
of access that representatives of for-profit educational
institutions have to military installations and whether there
are adequate safeguards in place to regulate such access.
Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards
Section 551--Issuance of Prisoner-of-War Medal
This section would amend section 1128 of title 10, United
States Code, to permit the prisoner-of-war medal to be awarded
to any person serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces who
was taken prisoner or held captive by a foreign armed force
under circumstances that the Secretary concerned finds to have
been comparable to those under which persons have generally
been held captive by enemy armed forces. Under current law, the
foreign armed forces must have been found to be hostile to the
United States.
Section 552--Award of Purple Heart to Members of the Armed Forces Who
Were Victims of the Attacks at Recruiting Station in Little Rock,
Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas
This section would require the Secretary concerned to award
the Purple Heart to members of the Armed Forces who were killed
or wounded in the attacks that occurred at the recruiting
station in Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, and at Fort
Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Section 561--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 authorize $25.0 million for the
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance
program to local educational agencies that are impacted by the
enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD
civilian employees. This section would also authorize $5.0
million for assistance to local educational agencies with
significant changes in enrollment of school-aged dependents of
military members and civilian employees due to base closures,
force structure changes, or force relocations.
Section 562--Transitional Compensation for Dependent Children Who Were
Carried During Pregnancy at the Time of the Dependent-Abuse Offense
Committed by an Individual While a Member of the Armed Forces
This section would extend transitional compensation
benefits and payments provided to victims of dependent abuse
under section 1059 of title 10, United States Code, to children
carried during pregnancy at the time of a dependent-abuse
offense.
Section 563--Modification of Authority to Allow Department of Defense
Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools to Enroll Certain
Students
This section would authorize the dependent of a member of
the Armed Forces or a dependent of a Federal employee who had
been enrolled in the overseas Defense Dependents' Education
System and was evacuated, to enroll in a Department of Defense
domestic elementary and secondary education school near the
safe haven where they were evacuated. This section would also
authorize the dependent of an Active Duty member of the Armed
Forces who upon return to the United States is enrolled in the
elementary or secondary school of a local educational agency,
to enroll in the Department of Defense's virtual elementary and
secondary education program on a tuition-paying basis.
Section 564--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who
Are Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend title II 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 the deployment
or anticipated deployment of a service member 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 a court from using deployment or the possibility of
deployment against a service member when determining the best
interest of a child.
Section 565--Treatment of Relocation of Members of the Armed Forces for
Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage Refinancing
This section would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act (50 U.S.C. App. 533) to authorize a service member to
refinance a principal residence if the service member does not
reside in the residence because of a permanent change of duty
station.
Section 566--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Yellow Ribbon Day
This section would express the sense of Congress supporting
the goals and ideals of Yellow Ribbon Day in honor of members
of the Armed Forces and U.S. civilians who are serving overseas
apart from their families and loved ones.
Subtitle H--Improved Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the
Armed Forces
Section 571--Establishment of Special Victim Teams to Respond to
Allegations of Child Abuse, Serious Domestic Violence, or Sexual
Offenses
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to establish special victim teams for the
investigation, prosecution, and victim support in connection
with child abuse, serious domestic violence, or sexual offenses
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, this
section would require the Secretary of each military department
to determine the number of special victim teams to be
established, and prescribe regulations for the management and
employment of the teams in order to provide effective, timely,
and responsive world-wide support. This section would also
require that at least one special victim team in each military
department be available for employment not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act. Furthermore, this
section would require each Secretary to provide to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than 270 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, a plan and time line for the establishment of the
remainder of the special victim teams that the Secretary has
determined are needed.
Section 572--Enhancement to Training and Education for Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide for sexual assault training during pre-command and
command courses.
Section 573--Enhancement to Requirements for Availability of
Information on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Resources
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prominently post information on sexual assault prevention and
response at specific locations throughout the Department of
Defense.
Section 574--Modification of Annual Department of Defense Reporting
Requirements Regarding Sexual Assaults
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to include additional information in the case
synopsis portion of the report on sexual assaults required by
section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
Section 575--Inclusion of Sexual Harassment Incidents in Annual
Department of Defense Reports on Sexual Assaults
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to include information on sexual harassment in the
annual Department of Defense report on sexual assault.
Section 576--Continued Submission of Progress Reports Regarding Certain
Incident Information Management Tools
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
continue to provide to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services a report on the
establishment of the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
and the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database until the
Secretary certifies that both systems are fully functional and
operational.
Section 577--Briefings on Department of Defense Actions Regarding
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces
This section requires the Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, to brief the Senate Committee Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services on the status of
implementation of the sexual assault provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 112-
81) and the initiative announced by the Secretary of Defense on
April 24, 2012.
Section 578--Armed Forces Workplace and Gender Relations Surveys
This section would require the Armed Forces Workplace and
Gender Relations Survey be conducted in 2014 and 2015 and every
2 years thereafter and include information in the reports on
sexual assault.
Section 579--Requirement for Commanders to Conduct Annual
Organizational Climate Assessments
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide for matters relating to sexual assault to be included
in organizational climate assessments conducted annually and
within 120 days of assuming command.
Section 580--Additional Requirements for Organizational Climate
Assessment
This section would require the secretary of Defense to
direct the secretaries of the military departments verify and
track compliance of commander conducting organizational climate
assessments.
Section 581--Review of Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault and
Subsequent Separation of Members Making Such Reports
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of all unrestricted reports of sexual assault
made by members of the Armed Forces since October 2000 to
determine the number of members who were separated from the
service following reporting sexual assault and the reason the
member was separated. The amendment would require the Secretary
to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services on the results of the
review.
Section 582--Limitation on Release From Active Duty or Recall to Active
Duty of Reserve Component Members Who Are Victims of Sexual Assault
While On Active Duty
This section would authorize members of the reserve
components to remain on active duty or be recalled to active
duty for up to 180 days to complete a line of duty
determination in cases of sexual assault.
Section 583--Inclusion of Information on Substantiated Reports of
Sexual Harassment in Member's Official Service Record
This section would require substantiated reports of sexual
harassment made against a member of the military services to be
included in the service record of the member.
Subtitle I--Other Matters
Section 590--Inclusion of Freely Associated States Within Scope of
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program
This section would amend section 2031(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of a military
department to establish and maintain a unit of the Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps at a secondary education
institution if the conditions of section 2031(b) of title 10,
United States Code, are met.
Section 591--Preservation of Editorial Independence of Stars and
Stripes
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
extend the lease for the commercial office space in the
District of Columbia currently occupied by the editorial staff
and management operations of ``Stars and Stripes.'' This
section would extend the lease until the Secretary can provide
space and support for the operations of ``Stars and Stripes''
in a Government-owned facility that is located within the
National Capital Region that is geographically remote from the
Defense Media Activity's facilities at Fort Meade, Maryland.
The committee believes it is critically important to preserving
the editorial independence of ``Stars and Stripes.''
Section 592--Sense of Congress Regarding Designation of Bugle Call
Commonly Known as ``Taps'' as National Song of Remembrance
This section would express the sense of Congress that
``Taps'' should be designated as the National Song of
Remembrance.
Section 593--Recommended Conduct During Sounding of Bugle Call Commonly
Known as ``Taps''
This section would establish the recommended conduct of
persons during the sounding of the bugle call known as
``Taps''.
Section 594--Inspection of Military Cemeteries Under the Jurisdiction
of Department of Defense
This section would amend section 1(d)1 of Public Law 111-
339 to eliminate the requirement for the Secretary of the Army
to report on Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, and the
U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, District of
Columbia, in fiscal year 2013. Instead, this section would
require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to
conduct the inspection, thereby eliminating the current
requirement that both the Secretary of the Army and the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense conduct
inspections in 2013.
This section would also provide both the Inspector General
of the Department of Defense and the Secretaries of the
military departments an additional 6 months to meet the
inspection and reporting requirements in section 592(d)(2) of
Public Law 112-81, which requires the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to inspect a statistically valid sample
of cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the
military departments and for the Secretaries of the military
departments to report their plans for corrective actions to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services. The new suspense dates for the Inspector
General and the Secretaries of the military departments would
be June 29, 2013, and October 1, 2013, respectively.
Section 595--Pilot Program to Provide Transitional Assistance to
Members of the Armed Forces With a Focus on Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct pilot programs to provide transitional assistance to
members of the Armed Forces with a focus on science,
technology, engineering and mathematics.
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 1.7 percent to
ensure that military pay rates keep pace with pay increases 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, 2012, be extended for an
additional year.
The committee also recommends two provisions that would
extend the availability of housing and shopping benefits to
service members and their families following an involuntary
separation during the drawdown of military forces.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Military Resale Participation in Container Deposit Programs
The committee is aware that military exchange and
commissary systems do not directly participate in State and
local container deposit programs designed to control litter and
advance recycling objectives. The committee understands that as
agencies of the Federal Government, military exchange and
commissary systems would not historically participate in State
and local programs that are viewed as taxation, although
container deposit programs are generally viewed as user fees.
The committee recognizes that container deposit programs are
highly valued initiatives in the States and locales in which
they are operated. However, the committee would like to better
understand the implications of requiring the military resale
community to participate in container deposit programs, as well
as the potential for setting a precedent with broad
consequences for the Federal Government regarding the
participation of a Federal agency in State and local tax or
user fee programs. Accordingly, 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
March 31, 2013, assessing if it is appropriate for military
exchange and commissary systems to participate in State and
local container deposit programs. The Secretary should consider
the implications of a decision to support the participation of
military resale organizations in container deposit programs
and, at a minimum, provide an assessment of:
(1) The impact on the operations and financial
management of military resale organizations.
(2) The cost and other burdens imposed on patrons of
military resale organizations.
(3) The potential for far reaching precedents with
implications for all appropriated and nonappropriated
fund activities throughout the Federal Government.
(4) The legal questions associated with such a
decision, to include any concerns about the
constitutionality of such participation.
(5) Examples of how the Department of Defense
complies with State or local beverage container laws.
The Secretary should also include in the report a
recommendation concerning the propriety of military exchanges
and commissaries participating in State and local container
deposit programs. The committee further directs the Secretary
not to assign responsibility for managing the conduct of the
study and the writing of the resulting report to any military
exchange system or commissary system.
Military Retirement Modernization Commission
The committee has reviewed the President's legislative
proposal to establish a military retirement modernization
commission to review and make recommendations to modernize the
military retirement system to ensure that the system remains
fiscally sustainable and supports the need to recruit and
retain a quality force. The committee is concerned that the
proposal includes provisions that would unnecessarily limit the
legislative authority of the House of Representatives by
imposing a legislative process that eliminates the ability of
the House of Representatives to amend the legislation proposed
by the President. The committee believes that the Secretary of
Defense should submit to the President, for submission to
Congress, the retirement modernization proposal that he and the
uniformed leaders of the military departments consider
necessary. The committee believes that Congress, with the
benefit of a retirement modernization proposal that reflects
the best judgment of the civilian and military leaders of the
Department of Defense, can debate and, if judged appropriate,
improve and finalize a reform proposal. The committee believes
that the House of Representatives should have a voice in
shaping this important benefit and should not abandon its
Constitutional responsibility to consider this specific
legislation in accordance with the regular order rules of the
House of Representatives.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Nonappropriated Fund Contract Options
The committee is concerned that military department
managers of Department of Defense morale, welfare, and
recreation (MWR) nonappropriated fund activities have concluded
that they do not have the authority to engage in service
contracts that involve multiple installations and extend over
several years. The committee believes this question should be
formally settled and, if necessary, resolved with corrective
legislation. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees by
March 31, 2013, a report verifying whether the perceived
contracting restriction identified by MWR managers is in place
and, if so, to identify the contracting law that imposes the
restriction. The report should also include a legislative
proposal that would remove the restriction, as well as the
Secretary's assessment of the situation and recommendations for
an appropriate course of action.
Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officers
The committee continues to receive information that
suggests there is an inadequate number of Physical Evaluation
Board Liaison Officers (PEBLO) at some Department of Defense
(DOD) installations, and that some of the PEBLOs are
inadequately trained and lack sufficient experience to fulfill
their job responsibilities. The committee is aware that wounded
warriors and other individuals required to meet Physical
Evaluation Boards (PEB) have reported that their assigned
PEBLOs are overworked, yet many also lack the experience
necessary to assist them successfully resolve their status
within the Disability Evaluation System (DES).
The committee is concerned that in light of current
budgetary constraints, DOD officials responsible for managing
the DES have overlooked the importance of PEBLOs to the
successful operation of the system and the appropriate care and
fair treatment for service members with disabilities.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report by
March 31, 2013, on the ratio of assigned PEBLOs to the number
of service members meeting PEBs, the number of vacant PEBLO
positions, and the authorized grades of PEBLO positions by
installation across the Department of Defense. The report
should also provide assessments of the adequacy of the
Department's standard for the ratio of PEBLOs to service
members meeting PEBs; the sufficiency of experience levels
within the PEBLO workforce; and the effectiveness of PEBLO
training programs.
Transition of U.S. Territories from Overseas Housing Allowance to Basic
Allowance for Housing
The committee recognizes that the administrative process
supporting the payment of Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) is
more cumbersome for service members and program managers than
is the process supporting payment of the Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH). The committee is interested in examining whether
the BAH system would be better than the OHA system at providing
housing allowances to service members assigned to duty in U.S.
territories. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees by
March 31, 2013, a report on the feasibility and appropriateness
of changing the process for determining housing allowances in
U.S. territories from the OHA system to the BAH system. The
report should provide an assessment as to which system better
supports the quality of life of service members, and is most
suitable to the housing market of each U.S. territory (American
Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands). The report should also provide
the comparable costs of operating the OHA and BAH systems in
each of the U.S. territories, as well as the cost of
implementing the transition from the OHA system to the BAH
system.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Fiscal Year 2013 Increase in Military Basic Pay
This section would increase basic pay for members of the
uniform services by 1.7 percent, effective January 1, 2013.
This raise would match the pay raise rate in the private sector
as measured by the Employment Cost Index.
Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing for Two-Member Couples When
One Member is on Sea Duty
This section would authorize dual military couples without
dependents below the grade of E-6 to receive basic allowance
for housing while serving on sea duty. This section would also
eliminate the requirement that such couples must be
simultaneously serving on sea duty before becoming eligible to
receive basic allowance for housing.
Section 603--No Reduction in Basic Allowance for Housing for Army
National Guard and Air National Guard Members Who Transition Between
Active Duty and Full-Time National Guard Duty Without a Break in Active
Service
This section would prevent reductions in the rate of basic
allowance for housing for National Guard service members who
transition from full-time National Guard duty to Active Duty,
or from Active Duty to full-time National Guard duty, when the
transition occurs without a break in active service.
Section 604--Modification of Program Guidance Relating to the Award of
Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence Administrative Absence
Days to Members of the Reserve Components Under DOD Instruction 1327.06
This section would grandfather members of the Reserve
Component mobilized under wartime or national emergency
circumstances prior to October 1, 2011, from the policy changes
implemented on that date by the Secretary of Defense relating
to the award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence
administrative absence days under DOD Instruction 1327.06.
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, income replacement payments for Reserve
Component members experiencing extended and frequent
mobilization for active duty service, and the authority to
reimburse travel expenses for inactive-duty training outside of
normal commuting distance until December 31, 2013.
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, 2013.
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, 2013.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37
Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would extend 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, 2013.
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, 2013.
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Amount of Officer Affiliation Bonus
for Officers in the Selected Reserve
This section would increase the maximum amount that may be
paid to officers who enter into an agreement to serve in the
Selected Reserve for a specified contract period from $10,000
to $20,000.
Section 617--Increase in Maximum Amount of Incentive Bonus for Reserve
Component Members Who Convert Military Occupational Specialty to Ease
Personnel Shortages
This section would increase to $4,000 the amount of the
bonus that may be paid to Reserve Component members who convert
their military occupational specialty to ease personnel
shortages.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances Generally
Section 621--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Non-Medical
Attendants for Members Receiving Care in a Residential Treatment
Program
This section would authorize non-medical attendants to
receive travel and transportation benefits when assisting a
service member receiving care in a residential treatment
program if medical authorities determine that the presence and
participation of such an attendant is essential to the
treatment of the member.
Subtitle D--Benefits and Services for Members Being Separated or
Recently Separated
Section 631--Extension of Authority To Provide Two Years of Commissary
and Exchange Benefits After Separation
This section would extend the period of eligibility from
December 31, 2012, to December 31, 2018, in which service
members who are involuntarily separated may continue to use
commissary and exchange stores for 2 years following the date
of separation.
Section 632--Transitional Use of Military Family Housing
This section would establish October 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2018, as the period of eligibility in which
service members who are involuntarily separated may remain in
Government-provided family housing for up to 180 days after the
date of separation.
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Section 641--Charitable Organizations Eligible for Donations of
Unusable Commissary Store Food and Other Food Prepared for the Armed
Forces
This section would clarify that the Secretary of Defense
may make donations of unusable food to charitable food banks,
food pantries, and soup kitchens.
Section 642--Repeal of Certain Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Applicable to Commissary and Exchange Stores Overseas
This section would eliminate the requirement that the
Secretary of Defense report to Congress the changes in
restrictions on the sale of merchandise by commissary and
exchange stores overseas that are required to prevent the
resale of such merchandise in violation of treaty obligations
of the United States or host-nation laws.
Section 643--Treatment of Fisher House for the Families of the Fallen
and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, as a Fisher
House
This section would codify in title 10, United States Code,
the designation of the Fisher House for Families of the Fallen
and Meditation Pavilion at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, and
clarify that authorized Fisher House residents of that facility
include the primary next of kin, other family members of a
member of the Armed Forces who dies while serving overseas, and
escorts of those family members.
Section 644--Purchase of Sustainable Products, Local Food Products, and
Recyclable Materials for Resale in Commissary and Exchange Store
Systems
This section would require the governing body giving
oversight and management direction to the military exchange and
commissary systems in accordance with section 2481(c) of title
10, United States Code, to establish guidelines for the
identification of fresh meat, poultry, seafood, produce, and
other products raised or produced through sustainable methods
that are not harmful to the ecology. This section would require
the guidelines to be established not later than 2 years from
the date of the enactment of this Act. The committee believes
the guidelines should consider the impact of implementing
sustainable product policies on the cost of goods and the
pricing of the products offered to patrons. This section would
also require that the governing body to establish, not later
than September 30, 2017, goals for all exchange and commissary
stores to purchase sustainable products, local food products,
and recyclable materials.
Subtitle F--Disability, Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits
Section 651--Repeal of Requirement for Payment of Survivor Benefit Plan
Premiums When Participant Waives Retired Pay to Provide a Survivor
Annuity Under Federal Employees Retirement System and Terminating
Payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity
This section would authorize retired military service
members when retiring under the Federal Employees Retirement
System to forgo the payment of premiums under the Survivor
Benefit Plan. The option would occur when the retired service
member waives military retired pay in order to elect a civil
service retirement and provide a survivor annuity.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 661--Consistent Definition of Dependent for Purposes of
Applying Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Certain
Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents
This section would change the definition of ``dependent''
with regard to the limitations on the terms of consumer credit
extended to service members and their dependents to align with
the definition of ``dependent'' as used to establish
eligibility for military medical care in section 1072 of title
10, United States Code. The change would simplify the process
for determining which family members are covered by the limits
on the terms of consumer credit.
Section 662--Limitation on Reduction in Number of Military and Civilian
Personnel Assigned to Duty with Service Review Agencies
This section would extend from December 31, 2013, to
December 31, 2016, the limitation that the manpower levels
within the service review agencies of the military departments
shall not be reduced below the manpower levels that existed on
January 1, 2002, unless the Secretary of a military department
reports the scope and purpose of the reduction and a 90-day
period elapses.
Section 663--Equal Treatment for Members of Coast Guard Reserve Called
to Active Duty Under Title 14, United States Code
This section would authorize certain benefits for members
of the Coast Guard Reserve when mobilized to ensure that they
are provided equal benefits as those received by reserve
members of the military departments. The benefits would include
eligibility for retired pay and educational assistance.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that
members of the Armed Forces, retirees, survivors, and their
families have access to quality health care. The committee is
aware of the fiscal constraints that the Department of Defense
faces and the resultant challenges providing for military
medical readiness, combat casualty care for our deployed
forces, health care for our physically or emotionally wounded
service members as well as health care services to all eligible
beneficiaries.
Recognizing these challenges, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81)
included authority for the Secretary of Defense to raise
TRICARE Prime enrollment fees. In addition, the committee
continued to encourage the Department of Defense to address the
cost of providing health care by adopting proven practices to
improve the health status of the beneficiary population and
improve the cost-effectiveness of the care provided to
beneficiaries. In this context, the committee notes with
concern the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2013 proposals to
reduce the cost of health care by increasing the cost of
TRICARE to retirees, including TRICARE for Life beneficiaries.
The Department proposal included new fees in addition to
significantly increasing existing fees. The committee is
disappointed that the Department of Defense continues to rely
too narrowly on shifting the cost burden to beneficiaries
without aggressively pursuing internal efficiencies. The
committee continues to believe that career members of the
uniformed services and their families endure unique and
extraordinary demands and make sacrifices over the course of a
military career and that those decades of sacrifice constitute
a significant pre-paid premium for health care after retiring.
The committee continues to support the Department of
Defense's efforts to identify and treat traumatic brain injury
(TBI) occurring in members of the Armed Forces as a result of
combat. The committee commends the Department for the many
ongoing efforts to identify TBI and the collateral medical
issues that accompany TBI such as visual dysfunction. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to
expand access to treatment programs for all service members,
including those in the Reserves and National Guard, and to
identify community resources and expertise to assist in this
effort.
Finally, the committee remains concerned with the
Department of Defense plan to restructure the governance of the
military health system. The committee remains unconvinced that
the Department has conducted sufficient analysis of the plan to
develop a comprehensive cost estimate of implementing the
proposed governance structure. The committee continues to
support a unified medical command to improve the quality of
care being provided by the services at a significant cost
savings. However, the committee looks forward to the results of
Comptroller General review, required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), of
the options considered for reorganizing the military health
system.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operators Mental Health
The committee commends the U.S. Air Force School of
Aerospace Medicine for their efforts to assess the mental
health of the Air Force Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
operators, which included a survey of Reaper, Predator, and
Global Hawk operators, along with support personnel. While the
remote nature of these Air Force operations shield airmen from
traditional combat threats, research being conducted on the
psychological impact of those currently serving in this form of
warfare is important, particularly in understanding the impact
of a sustained operational tempo. While the Air Force has
undertaken this initiative, the committee notes that the other
services have not performed similar assessments of their UAV
operators and support personnel, who are closer to the fight,
and whose mental health assessment may be different from those
in the Air Force. The committee believes there may be merit in
the Army and Navy conducting a similar mental health assessment
and urges the other services to conduct similar assessments of
their UAV personnel.
Comptroller General Report on Chiropractic Health Care Professionals
The committee understands that for more than a decade, the
Department of Defense has provided high-quality chiropractic
health care services to Active Duty military personnel at
military treatment facilities throughout the world. Today,
chiropractic health care continues to be a key benefit for the
men and women of the Armed Force as a result of increased
incidences of musculoskeletal injuries sustained in combat.
However, the committee is concerned by disparities in pay and
job classifications that have resulted in chiropractors
receiving lower wage rates than health care providers with
either comparable or less training, skill sets, and health care
responsibilities for patients in military treatment facilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a study and submit the findings to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by April 1, 2013, on the wage rates for
chiropractors within the Department of Defense as compared to
health care providers with either comparable or less training,
skill sets, licensure and certification requirements, and
health care responsibilities.
Improvements to the Measurement of Vital Signs
The committee commends the military medical system for
continuing to improve its operational strategies to accommodate
the reality of modern warfare. In the committee report (H.
Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee noted the challenges
encountered while providing critical care to war fighters
regarding the ability to curtail the progression and minimize
complications of shock. The committee encouraged the Department
of Defense to develop methods for providing automated
resuscitation during medical evacuation. The committee remains
concerned that the assessment measures currently employed on
the battlefield do not provide definitive early indications of
internal bleeding or other non-visible symptoms. The committee
is aware that there are potential technologies and systems that
may provide for a more precise measurement of vital signs and
assessment of an individual's current medical state that would
improve the assessment and treatment of injuries with greater
accuracy. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue efforts to improve care in this area.
Modification to the Report on Department of Defense Autism Pilot and
Demonstration Projects
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
continued efforts to ensure that military families have access
to autism diagnosis, intervention, and treatment services. The
committee encourages the Department to continue to assist
military families with autistic children to receive the full
and expanding range of evidence-based intervention and
treatment approaches. In addition, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to include in the report required by
Section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) any efforts to provide
services specifically for autistic children of military
families living in rural or underserved communities using
mobile diagnostic capabilities.
Optimizing Blood Transfusions for Service Members
The committee is aware of efforts to improve medical care
that will minimize medical complications, including life-
threatening transfusion reactions, incompatible blood
transfusions, and pregnancy complications due to antibody
formation, as a result of blood transfusions. These
complications are particularly critical in patients from
different ethnic backgrounds. The committee supports military
medical research that will help to improve outcomes for the
military community which has a diverse ethnic population
reflective of American society. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to pursue efforts that would optimize
blood transfusion to reduce medical complications.
Overseas Medical Research Laboratories
The committee recognizes the historic and critical role
that Army and Navy Overseas Medical Research Laboratories have
played in military medicine, and just as importantly, in
civilian medical applications. Research conducted by these
laboratories in indigenous infectious diseases, such as malaria
and dengue virus, have led to prevention and treatment efforts
that have protected our service members, American citizens
abroad, and global public health. The committee urges the
Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy to remain
mindful of these accomplishments and the critical role these
laboratories have played in military medicine and the
protection of our troops.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Training for Mental Health Providers
The committee continues to recognize the Department of
Defense's efforts to address the issue of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD). PTSD has been a continuing and growing issue
across the Department, with significant impact on readiness and
quality of life for personnel and military families. To address
this ongoing and growing need, multifaceted solutions focusing
on the skills of behavioral health professionals, training on
treatment of the disorder as well as innovative treatment
approaches are required. To that end, the committee encourages
the Department to develop training programs for psychology and
behavioral health professionals, including those that combine
education, outreach and biofeedback research for the treatment
of PTSD.
Prostate Imaging
The Committee is aware that in spite of the magnitude of
the prostate cancer epidemic in the military and civilian
populations, men do not have reliable diagnostic tools for
guiding early detection and treatment which is critical for
saving lives, improving quality of life and reducing health
care costs. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Department
to intensify research for the advancement of prostate imaging
technologies.
Safety of Blood Products
The Committee is aware of efforts by the United States Army
Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) to enhance
blood product safety, particularly with regard to whole blood
and platelet transfusions. To complicate the issue, platelets
can only be stored at room temperature and for a few days,
unlike other blood components such as plasma and red cells
which can be refrigerated for weeks. Currently, the quality of
platelet concentrates can be determined by either an extremely
subjective visual check or by testing random samples directly
from the sterile bag, thus compromising the sterility of the
remaining platelets. The Committee believes the research being
done on the monitoring of platelets and whole blood at USAMRMC
could improve the quality of stored platelets by allowing
constant, non-invasive testing of multiple therapeutic doses,
rather than a random sample. Such testing could result in labor
reduction and multiple bag readings, thereby increasing the
efficiency of distribution and supply. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to expedite the blood
product safety research and development efforts to ensure that
the blood products used on the battlefield and during combat
casualty care efforts are of the highest quality.
Substance Abuse
The committee is aware that the number of service members
in need of substance abuse treatment continues to rise as a
result of the continued and sustained deployment cycle of the
force. Over 10 years of combat have lead to an increase in the
rate of misuse of alcohol, painkillers, and illicit drugs. The
services have made efforts to invest in treatment and
prevention programs. For example, the Army hired 125 additional
counselors in 2011 to address the increasing demand for these
services. The committee commends the Army for its support of
substance abuse treatment programs, and encourages the services
to ensure that effective programs and credentialed providers
are available for service members. In addition, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to pursue translational
research focused on the development of new treatments for
alcoholism, addiction, and related neuropsychiatric conditions
to further improve the tools and therapies available to treat
service members dealing with substance abuse.
Traumatic Brain Injury
The committee continues to support the Department of
Defense's efforts to identify and treat traumatic brain injury
(TBI) occurring in members of the Armed Forces as a result of
combat. The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to identify
TBI, in particular the short-term medical needs associated with
TBI, and expand access to treatment programs for all service
members, including members of the Reserve Components and the
National Guard. However, the committee is increasingly
concerned about the potential long-term implications of TBI for
members of the Armed Forces, in particular those who experience
multiple traumatic brain injuries, and the support needed for
these service members and their families.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
continue to work with the National Guard, and its state
organizations, to identify and partner with regional health
providers and medical centers with expertise in psychiatric
care and traumatic brain injury. The goal of this partnership
is to develop, implement, and evaluate programs to improve the
psychological and behavioral health and well-being of members
of the National Guard and the Reserves. In addition, in order
to maximize the use of publicly funded resources and
organizations, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to collaborate with state government programs to assist
service members, their families, and caregivers in accessing
community resources and services that enable members with TBI
to return to their homes and communities. The committee also
encourages the Department to continue the research it has
conducted with universities and similar entities, on the long-
term risks of TBI and potential interventions, including novel
drug therapies to enhance the treatments available for service
members with TBI.
The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Vision Center of Excellence is
working together with the Defense Centers of Excellence for
Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to develop
clinical practice guidelines for primary medical providers to
detect vision dysfunction associated with TBI. The Vision
Center of Excellence is also working to develop a more
effective ocular, oculomotor, and visual systems diagnostic
capabilities and assessment strategies to address research gaps
that have been identified. The committee is aware that there
are several research projects involving visual dysfunction
associated with TBI and directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on
the results of these studies and the development of the
clinical practice guidelines.
Treatment of Musculoskeletal Injuries
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) provided the Secretary of Defense the
authority to enter into partnerships to enable coordinated,
rapid clinical evaluation and application of evidence-based
treatment strategies for wounded service members, particularly
those with musculoskeletal injuries. In addition, the
Department was urged by the committee to continue to invest in
orthopedic research to provide cutting edge tools and
technologies to military providers. The committee understands
that the Department has undertaken a number of different
initiatives in this area, including a joint effort with the
Department of Veterans Affairs in pain management that focuses
on musculoskeletal injuries. The committee encourages the
Department to continue to invest in orthopedic research and
continue their efforts to work with a broad range of partners
to accelerate the deployment of effective treatments to improve
musculoskeletal care of service members.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Improvements to Health Benefits
Section 701--Sense of Congress on Nonmonetary Contributions to Health
Care Benefits Made by Career Members of the Armed Forces and Their
Families
This section would express the sense of Congress that
career members of the uniformed services and their families
endure unique and extraordinary demands and make extraordinary
sacrifices over the course of a military career and those
decades of sacrifice constitute a significant pre-paid premium
for health care during a career member's retirement that is
over and above what the member pays with money.
Section 702--Extension of TRICARE Standard Coverage and TRICARE Dental
Program for Members of the Selected Reserve Who Are Involuntarily
Separated
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE dental insurance
coverage for 180 days to members of the Selected Reserve who
are involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserve.
Section 703--Medical and Dental Care Contracts for Certain Members of
the National Guard
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that members of the National Guard and the Reserves who
receive medical and dental care under contracts by the National
Guard or State meet medical and dental readiness standards upon
mobilization.
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--Authority for Automatic Enrollment in TRICARE Prime of
Dependents of Members in Pay Grades Above Pay Grade E-4
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
automatically enroll dependents of a service member in TRICARE
Prime. This section also would allow Active Duty service
members the option to terminate the enrollment of a dependent
at any time.
Section 713--Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between the Military
Departments and Non-Military Health Care Entities
This section would permit the Secretaries of the military
departments to establish cooperative health care arrangements
and agreements between military installations and local and
regional non-military health care entities.
Section 714--Requirement To Ensure the Effectiveness and Efficiency of
Health Engagements
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
develop a process to ensure that health engagements conducted
by the Department of Defense are effective and efficient in
meeting the national security goals of the United States. This
section would provide the Secretary authority to conduct pilot
programs to assess the effectiveness of any process developed
to ensure the applicability of the process.
Section 715--Clarification of Applicability of Federal Tort Claims Act
to Subcontractors Employed to Provide Health Care Services to the
Department of Defense
This section would include individuals working under a
subcontract of a personal services contract for health care as
covered Government employees for medical malpractice purposes
under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Section 716--Pilot Program on Increased Third-Party Collection
Reimbursements in Military Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program for 3 years at not less than two
military installations to asses the feasibility of using
revenue-cycle improvement processes, including cash flow
management and accounts-receivable processes to increase
amounts collected by military treatment facilities from third
party payers. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
submit a report of the results of the pilot program to the
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
completion.
Section 717--Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance Medications for
TRICARE for Life Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE Mail-Order Pharmacy
Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program for 5 years that would require TRICARE
for Life eligible beneficiaries to obtain refill prescriptions
for maintenance medication from the TRICARE mail order
pharmacy. This section would allow beneficiaries to opt out of
the mail order program after 1 year and would authorize the
Secretary of Defense to waive the mail order requirement on an
individual basis if the Secretary deems it appropriate.
Section 718--Cost-Sharing Rates For Pharmacy Benefits Program of the
TRICARE Program
This section would establish the cost-sharing rates under
the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program as $5 for generic
medications, $17 for formulary medications and $44 for non-
formulary medications obtained through retail pharmacies, and
$0 for generic medications, $13 for formulary medications and
$43 for non-formulary medications obtained through the TRICARE
mail order pharmacy. This section would also limit any annual
increase in cost-sharing rates under the TRICARE pharmacy
program to the amount equal to the percentage increase by which
retiree pay is increased beginning October 1, 2013.
Section 719--Review of the Administration of the Military Health System
This section would amend Section 716 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) to require the Secretary of Defense to implement and
complete any recommendations included in the report on the
review of the administration of the military health system
submitted by the Comptroller General before restructuring or
reorganizing the military health system.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Section 721--Extension of Comptroller General Report on Contract Health
Care Staffing for Military Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would extend the deadline for the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit the report required by
section 726 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) on the contracting
activities used by the military departments to provide health
care professional services by civilian providers.
Section 722--Extension of Comptroller General Report on Women-Specific
Health Services and Treatment for Female Members of the Armed Forces
This section would extend the deadline for the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit the report required by
section 725 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) on health care services
for female members of the Armed Forces.
Section 723--Establishment of TRICARE Working Group
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a working group to review the TRICARE program with
respect to providing pediatric health care, including special
and chronic health care needs, and make recommendations to
ensure children receive appropriate care and access remains
available for military families with children. This section
would require the working group not later than 12 months after
convening to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees and submit a final report to the congressional
defense committees not later than 18 months after the first
report. In addition, this section would express the sense of
Congress on pediatric health care needs.
Section 724--Report on Strategy to Transition To Use of Human-Based
Methods for Certain Medical Training
This section would require the Department of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2013, a report that outlines a strategy to refine, and
when appropriate, transition to using human-based training
methods for the purpose of training members of the Armed Forces
in the treatment of combat trauma. It would also require an
annual report on the development and implementation of human-
based training methods beginning on March 1, 2014.
The committee is aware that effective combat-trauma
training has contributed to the lowest killed-in-action rate
and fatality rate in U.S. military history. Over the past few
years, the committee encouraged use of simulation technology in
medical training by the Department of Defense, but also noted
that the use of live animals in combat-trauma training is
appropriate for critical, high-risk medical procedures until
alternatives are developed that provide combat medics an equal
or better training experience. The committee believes that the
Department has striven to provide realistic combat-trauma
training while also ensuring the humane treatment of animals.
However, as also expressed in the committee report (H.
Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee believes that the
Department should continue to aggressively pursue alternatives
to the use of live animals in combat-trauma training and to
implement a strategy for the development of future technology
to refine, reduce, and when appropriate, replace the use of
live animals in medical education and training. The committee
is encouraged that such progression has already taken place in
the area of chemical-biological defense training, and
encourages the Department to continue this progression in other
areas of medical training.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Comptroller General Report of the Air Force Launch Services New Entrant
Certification Guide
The committee notes that new commercial launch providers
are developing launch vehicles to compete against established
launch providers for missions. As a result, the Air Force has
developed a Launch Services New Entrant Certification Guide.
This guide serves as a risk-based approach that the Air Force
Space and Missile Systems Center will use to certify the
capability of potential new entrant launch companies to provide
launch services for Department of Defense national security
space missions on evolved expendable launch vehicle class
launch vehicles. The committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to report to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2013 with a review and analysis of
the implementation of the Air Force Launch Services New Entrant
Certification Guide.
Counterfeit Electronic Parts
The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the
Department of Defense and elements of the defense industrial
base to confront the challenge of preventing counterfeit
electronic parts from entering the defense supply chain. The
committee believes it imperative that the Department engage
industry in a consistent and meaningful dialogue as it
continues to craft and implement policies and procedures for
meeting this challenge. The committee considers close and
continuing communication between industry and policy makers to
be instrumental to effecting sound policies and procedures,
throughout the defense industrial base, and for avoiding costly
or ineffectual missteps in mitigating the threat of counterfeit
electronic parts. The committee is also concerned that the
presence of, or reliance on, obsolete or obsolescent electronic
components within the defense supply chain may increase the
risk of counterfeit part usage. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the risks associated
with obsolete or obsolescent electronic parts and counterfeits
thereof to the defense supply chain and to brief the
congressional defense committees, on or before April 1, 2013,
on the findings of the assessment and any recommendations for
reducing the assessed risks or incentivizing the industrial
base to implement effective remedies.
Incentives to Combat Counterfeit Microelectronics
The committee has been concerned for several years about
the Department of Defense's ability to assure its supply chain
of trusted microelectronics. Section 254 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) directed the Department to assess the vulnerability of the
microelectronics supply chain, including updating policies to
procure assured, trusted microelectronics. Section 818 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) directed the Department to assess its policies to
detect and avoid acquisition of counterfeit electronic parts to
deal with one aspect of that problem. As it implements new
policies and regulations to prevent acquisition of counterfeit
microelectronics, the committee encourages the Department to
find ways to incentivize microelectronics manufacturers to
supply components and provide system assembly within the United
States.
Incorporation of a Proposal Adequacy Checklist for Certain
Solicitations
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense is
taking steps to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement to incorporate the use of a proposal
adequacy checklist for proposals received in response to
solicitations that require submission of certified cost and
pricing data. The committee believes that the incorporation of
such a checklist will aid in the development of high-quality
proposals and will assist offerors in being able to self-
validate the adequacy of their proposal before submission. The
committee also believes that the use of such a checklist will
allow the Defense Contract Audit Agency to more quickly close
out audits, and will thereby reduce the current backlog of
audits.
Inspector General Review of Database of Senior Department of Defense
Officials Seeking Employment with Defense Contractors
The committee wishes to be apprised of the Department of
Defense's record of compliance with section 847 of Public Law
110-181 (10 U.S.C. 1701 note). Therefore, the committee directs
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct a
review of the database established pursuant to section 847 of
Public Law 110-181 and to submit to the congressional defense
committees, in a manner that ensures the protection of
confidential, personal, or proprietary information, a report on
the findings of that review on or before July 8, 2013. At a
minimum, the report should include the following: the findings
of previous Inspector General of the Department of Defense
reviews to ensure that written opinions are being provided and
retained in accordance with section 847 of Public Law 110-181;
the total number of opinions issued and the total number of
opinions retained in accordance with section 847 of Public Law
110-181; and any instances in which a request for a written
opinion pursuant to section 847 of Public Law 110-181 lacked a
corresponding written opinion, or in which the written opinion
was not provided to the requesting official or former official
of the Department of Defense by the appropriate ethics
counselor within 30 days after the request for a written
opinion.
Report on Contingency Contracting Lessons Learned
The United States has been engaged in military operations
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan since late 2001, as well
as conducted military operations in the Republic of Iraq from
2003 to 2011. In these conflicts, the Department of Defense
utilized a variety of contractors, contract vehicles,
authorities, and funds for operational contract support to
execute a variety of small- and large-scale services and
reconstruction projects. The committee notes that operational
contract support and reconstruction activities of the
Department of Defense have faced substantial challenges. These
challenges, as noted by many observers, including the
Commission on Wartime Contracting, the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Government Accountability
Office, and the Department of Defense itself, occurred along
the full spectrum of operational contract support and, at
times, included the failure to properly understand the
operating environment and actors in that environment, a lack of
transparency in the contracting network, and inchoate or
improperly defined requirements. In turn, the committee notes
that, at times, these challenges led to results that undermined
the desired effects of U.S. military operations, such as the
diversion of funds to enemy forces or corrupt actors and the
creation of perverse incentives for local actors to maintain
instability.
The committee believes that operational contract support
capabilities are critical to the success of current and
potential future contingency operations, and further notes that
the Department of Defense has undertaken a variety of efforts
to improve these activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as
planning for future operations. The committee supports a
vigorous effort to capture lessons learned related to the full
breadth of operational contract support. The committee further
notes that past efforts to capture lessons learned were slowed
by a lack of resources and insufficient institutional support.
The committee believes that a joint force, commander-centric,
multi-disciplinary, holistic process is needed to capture and
ultimately codify effective solutions.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to undertake
an effort, utilizing the National Defense University or other
such educational institution of the Department of Defense, to
capture lessons learned related to Department contract
activities, such as operational contract support, resource and
financial management, Commanders' Emergency Response Program,
and reconstruction programs. Such an effort should utilize
personnel from the Department of Defense with related subject
matter expertise and experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
committee also encourages the participation of non-Department
personnel with similar expertise. The lessons-learned effort
should build upon already documented insights and observations,
including but not limited to those challenges noted above, as
well as successes of operational contract support efforts in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The study should recommend changes to the
full spectrum of activities within contingency contracting
operations, including delivery of supplies, services, and
reconstruction, in order to fully integrate business operations
with kinetic and non-kinetic lines of operations.
The committee further directs the Secretary to submit a
report on the conclusions of the lessons-learned effort to the
congressional defense committees by March 31, 2013.
Review of Department of Defense Processes and Procedures Related To
Federal Retail Excise Tax
The committee is aware that section 4051 of title 26,
United States Code, requires the Department of Defense to pay a
12 percent tax on certain medium and heavy trucks, trailers,
and semi-trailers that it procures. The current procedure
requires that when the Department of Defense awards a contract,
the contractor receives funds to produce the vehicles as well
as to cover the Federal retail excise tax (FRET) liabilities.
Thus, the funds to pay the Federal retail excise tax originate
from the Department of the Treasury as appropriated funds, are
then allocated to the Department of Defense to award to the
contractor, which are collected from the contractor by the
Internal Revenue Service, and then ultimately end up back at
the Department of the Treasury. The committee is concerned that
the current process for making FRET payments is inefficient,
generates unnecessary overhead and compliance burdens for all
parties, and ultimately squanders taxpayer dollars. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury, to examine the manner by
which FRET is calculated and processed by the Department of
Defense. The examination should:
(1) Assess the benefits and drawbacks of the current
process of using contractors as pass-through taxpayers;
and
(2) Identify alternatives to the current process to
improve efficiency, such as waiving the tax on vehicles
acquired by the Department of Defense, or using
interagency transfer authorities to aggregate tax
payment.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2013,
on the findings of the examination along with recommendations
for eliminating the inefficiencies and unnecessary overhead
related to FRET as it applies to Department of Defense
procurements.
Service and Support Business Model for Certain Simulation Capabilities
The committee recognizes there could be potential benefits
and efficiencies achieved through the acquisition of certain
simulation capabilities using a service and support business
model. Such a model could enable the Department of Defense to
acquire off-the-shelf capabilities through fixed-price
contracts that would:
(1) More efficiently deploy superior simulation
technologies;
(2) Improve technological relevance of simulators and
training devices;
(3) Provide data necessary to develop performance
metrics about the quality of training events; and
(4) Provide incentives for vendors to better maintain
and upgrade equipment to reflect both existing and
emerging training requirements.
The committee believes that such a business model is not
appropriate for the acquisition of complex, military-unique
simulators such as flight simulators, but the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine opportunities
where this approach could reduce cost and increase training
capabilities, especially for commercial-off-the-shelf and non-
developmental simulation capability.
Ship Maintenance and Modernization
The committee recognizes that small businesses are critical
partners in the ship maintenance and modernization market;
however, the committee is concerned that the recent repeal of
the sections 701 through 722 of the Business Opportunity
Development Reform Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-656), commonly
referred to as the Competitive Demonstration Program, may upset
the critical balance in the ship repair industrial base,
resulting in a restricted marketplace and reduced competition.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
conduct an assessment of the impact of the repeal of the
Competitive Demonstration Program on the ship maintenance and
modernization market, to include the Military Sealift Command
and all other vessels controlled by the Department on Defense.
The assessment should also review prime contracts that have
been awarded for ship repair or decommissioning since January
31, 2011, to determine if large, technically complex activities
were inappropriately awarded to small businesses. The Secretary
should provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees on the results of the assessment, along with any
recommendations to strengthen the ship repair industrial base,
by October 1, 2012. Elsewhere in this title, the committee also
includes a provision that would require, among other things,
that product support managers ensure that product support
strategies are implemented in a manner that maximizes small
business participation at the appropriate tiers, while ensuring
that small business concerns are not inappropriately selected
for performance as a prime contractor.
Simplified Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Items
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
submitted a legislative proposal that requested the authority
for use of simplified acquisition procedures for certain
commercial items be made permanent. The committee is concerned
that there is no data regarding the effectiveness of this
authority and that proper oversight may be lacking. While the
authority is intended to provide flexibility, streamline
acquisition processes for certain commercial items, and allow
contracting activities to better utilize limited resources, the
committee is concerned that the authority could be abused or
otherwise result in procurement irregularities. Therefore, the
committee does not believe permanent extension of the authority
is prudent at this time, and elsewhere in this title, the
committee includes a provision that would extend the authority
to January 1, 2015.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct a review of the use of the
authority. The review should examine:
(1) The extent of use of the authority;
(2) The cited rationales for use of the authority;
(3) The acquisition outcomes that have resulted; and
(4) An identification of waste, fraud, or abuse of
the authority.
The Comptroller General should provide the findings and
recommendations, to include a recommendation as to whether the
authority should be made permanent, to the congressional
defense committees and the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform by October 1, 2013.
Titanium Procurement Restrictions of Domestic Manufacturers
The committee understands that specialty metals, to include
titanium, are essential in the manufacturing processes of
military grade aircraft components. The committee notes that
Section 842 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) modified
statutory requirements for the procurement of specialty metals
from domestic sources and codified these requirements in
section 2533b of title 10, United States Code. Included in
section 2533b is an exception, relating to agreements with
foreign governments, that allows foreign manufacturers to
procure specialty metals from foreign sources for the purposes
of offsetting sales made by the United States Government or
United States firms in approved cases, or in furtherance of
agreements with foreign governments in which each government
agrees to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced or
services performed in the other country.
The committee is concerned that the implementation of
exceptions related to agreements with foreign governments may
be creating situations in which U.S. manufacturers are losing
market share to foreign manufacturers, who are able to obtain
specialty metals from foreign sources. Therefore, the committee
directs the Comptroller General to perform an assessment of the
effects of section 2533b on U.S. aircraft component
manufacturers. The assessment should include:
(1) a review of foreign manufacturers' market share
of Department of Defense (DOD) aircraft component
contracts since fiscal year 2005;
(2) the cost of U.S.-produced titanium compared to
foreign-produced titanium since fiscal year 2005;
(3) the number of U.S. manufacturers who stopped
producing titanium aircraft components for DOD since
section 2533b was enacted;
(4) an assessment of the overall impact of section
2533b on the defense aircraft component manufacturing
base since such section was enacted; and
(5) an assessment of U.S.-based aircraft component
manufacturers' abilities to compete with foreign
competitors who are not required to buy U.S.-produced
titanium.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the findings of
this assessment.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Section 801--Pilot Exemption Regarding Treatment of Procurements on
Behalf of the Department of Defense in Accordance with the Department
of Energy's Work for Others Program
This section would authorize a 24-month pilot exemption for
certain procurements performed by the Department of Energy on
behalf of the Department of Defense from duplicative and
unnecessary Inspector General of the Department of Defense
reviews and compliance certifications required by section 801
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181). This section would also require the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to certify to the congressional defense committees within 20
months after the date of the enactment of this Act that the
procurement policies, procedures, and internal controls of the
Department of Energy provide sufficient protection and
oversight for Department of Defense funds expended through the
Department of Energy's Work For Others Program, and to provide
a recommendation regarding whether the pilot exemption should
be extended.
Section 801 of Public Law 110-181 requires the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense to annually review the
procurement policies, procedures, and internal controls for all
non-defense agencies that perform procurements on behalf of the
Department of Defense to determine consistency with defense
procurement requirements. Section 801 also requires the
Inspector General to certify compliance with these requirements
for procurement of property or services performed by a non-
defense agency on behalf of the Department of Defense if the
procurement is above the simplified acquisition threshold. The
committee believes that these requirements are inefficient and
duplicative, and that the Department of Energy's methods for
overseeing contractor procurement and efficiency are equivalent
to those used by the Department of Defense.
Furthermore, the committee understands that the Department
of Defense has issued an annual exemption to the requirements
of section 801 each year the statute has been in effect. The
committee notes that these waivers have been issued because the
Department of Defense believes the requirements of section 801
are unnecessary and that the requirements have the potential to
impact the Department of Energy nuclear security laboratories'
ability to perform critical national security work for the
Department of Defense under the Department of Energy's Work For
Others Program.
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Section 811--Modification of Time Period for Congressional Notification
of the Lease of Certain Vessels by the Department of Defense
This section would amend section 2401 of title 10, United
States Code, by modifying the time period for congressional
notification of the lease of certain vessels from 30 days of
continuous session to 60 days.
Section 812--Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified Acquisition
Procedures for Certain Commercial Items
This section would amend section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 (division D of Public Law 104-106), as most
recently amended by section 816 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to
extend the authority for use of simplified acquisition
procedures for certain commercial items to January 1, 2015.
Section 813--Codification and Amendment Relating To Life-Cycle
Management and Product Support Requirements
This section would codify section 805 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) as section 2335 of title 10, United States Code, and
include a new requirement for a product support manager for a
major weapon system to use advanced predictive analysis
technologies to improve material availability and reliability,
increase operational availability rates, and reduce operation
and sustainment costs. This section would also ensure a product
support strategy maximizes small business participation at the
appropriate tiers in a manner that ensures that small
businesses are not inappropriately selected for performance as
a prime contractor.
Section 814--Codification of Requirement Relating To Government
Performance of Critical Acquisition Functions
This section would codify section 820 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364), relating to Government performance of critical
acquisition functions, as a new section in subchapter I of
chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 815--Limitation on Funding Pending Certification of
Implementation of Requirements for Competition
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating or expending more than 80 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the Secretary
of Defense for fiscal year 2013 until such time as the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the Department of Defense is implementing the requirements
of section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), as amended. This section would
also require that such certification be accompanied by: (1) a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the
processes and procedures that have been implemented across the
military departments and defense agencies to maximize
competition throughout the life-cycle of major defense
acquisition programs; and (2) a representative sample of
solicitations issued since May 22, 2009, intended to fulfill
the objectives of section 202(d) of Public Law 111-23.
The committee continues to believe that competition in
procurement actions can reduce costs, improve contractor
performance, and result in a better product being delivered to
our warfighters. As such, the committee continues to closely
monitor Air Force planning and decision-making related to the
sustainment of C-17 engines. While Department of the Air Force
officials have worked with the committee to address some
concerns regarding the Department's initial desire to execute a
sole-source procurement strategy for F117 engine supply chain
management, depot-level repair actions, and provisioning of
parts, the committee continues to believe that more can, and
should, be done to introduce competition into sustainment
actions related to the C-17, the F117 engine, and other
programs of the Department of Defense. For example, the
committee notes that the F117 engine is derived from a
commercial engine and that the content of the engine is 91
percent identical to the commercial variant. While the
committee understands that military flight profiles vary
greatly from commercial aviation profiles, the committee
continues to believe that the Air Force can greatly benefit
from maximizing competition in sustainment of the engine.
Furthermore, the committee has been provided little evidence
that the Department is introducing more competition in
procurement and sustainment activities as required by Public
Law 111-23.
Section 816--Contractor Responsibilities in Regulations Relating to
Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts
This section would amend section 818 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) to provide an exception to the prohibition on allowable
costs under Department of Defense contracts for the cost of
rework or corrective actions that may be required to remedy the
use or inclusion of counterfeit parts.
Section 817--Additional Definition Relating to Production of Specialty
Metals Within the United States
This section would amend section 2533b of title 10, United
States Code, to define the term ``produced'', as used in
section 2533b, to mean melted or processed in a manner that
results in physical or chemical property changes that are the
equivalent of melting. This section would also clarify that the
term does not include finishing processes such as rolling, heat
treatment, quenching, tempering, grinding or shaving.
Section 818--Requirement for Procurement of Infrared Technologies from
National Technology and Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United
States Code, to include infrared technologies on the list of
items subject to miscellaneous limitations on the procurement
of goods other than United States goods.
Section 819--Compliance with Berry Amendment Required for Uniform
Components Supplied to Afghan Military or Afghan National Police
This section would require that the requirements of section
2533a of title 10, United States Code, to buy certain articles
from American sources shall apply without exception or
exemption to any textile components supplied by the Department
of Defense to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National
Police for the purposes of the production of uniforms.
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Contracts in Support of Contingency
Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan
Section 821--Extension and Expansion of Authority To Acquire Products
and Services Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of Supply to
Afghanistan
This section would amend section 801 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) relating to temporary authority to acquire products and
services produced in countries along a major route of supply to
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This section would extend
the authority through December 31, 2014. This section would
also expand the authority under section 801 to acquire products
or services to be used by U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan, subject to a determination by the Secretary of
Defense that such products or services will be acquired from a
country that has agreed to allow the retrograde of coalition
personnel, equipment, and supplies from Afghanistan. This
section would prohibit the preferential procurement of goods or
services from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until such time
as the Government of Pakistan re-opens the ground lines of
communication through Pakistan in support of coalition
operations in Afghanistan. Finally, this section would repeal
an expired reporting requirement.
The committee believes these changes are necessitated by
the continued reliance on the Northern Distribution Network
(NDN) and encourages the Secretary of Defense to use the
expanded authority to increase the capacity of the NDN.
Section 822--Limitation on Authority To Acquire Products and Services
Produced in Afghanistan
This section would amend section 886 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to require the Secretary of Defense to make a
determination that the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan is not taxing assistance provided by the United
States to Afghanistan in violation of any bilateral or other
agreement with the United States, before providing preferential
treatment for the acquisition of a product or service produced
in Afghanistan.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 831--Enhancement of Review of Acquisition Process for Rapid
Fielding of Capabilities in Response To Urgent Operational Needs
This section would strike the requirement in section 804 of
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) that the acquisition process for
rapid fielding of capabilities in response to urgent
operational needs (UON) may only be applied for capabilities
that can appropriately be acquired under fixed price contracts.
Section 804(b)(1) of Public Law 111-383 required the Secretary
to develop a process to determine whether capabilities proposed
as urgent operational needs are appropriate for fielding
through the process for the rapid fielding of capabilities or
should be fielded through the traditional acquisition process.
The committee notes that this review is ongoing, but has had
delays and is now scheduled to be complete in August 2012. The
committee expects the review to be complete in August 2012.
The committee notes that when a capability is proposed as
an urgent operational need, it may not be known if the
capability can be fulfilled through fixed price contracting at
a reasonable cost and in an acceptable amount of time. The
committee understands that many solutions used to address
urgent operational needs have required varying degrees of
research and development efforts in order to field an effective
solution that addressed the warfighter's need. The committee is
aware that fixed price contracts are generally used when there
is adequate market data and the requirement is not expected to
change. Any change in quantity, performance, or delivery terms
requires the contractor to develop a new proposal for
modification, resulting in renegotiation, which can often lead
to significant cost growth, and performance and schedule
delays.
Section 832--Location of Contractor-Operated Call Centers in the United
States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that any call center operated pursuant to a contract
entered into by the Secretary or by the head of any of the
military departments is located in the United States.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of Department of Defense Future Years Defense Program
Workforce Requirements
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to
take a more holistic approach to its manpower requirements in
order to achieve the appropriate balance in its total
workforce, rather than simply managing to budgetary targets.
The Secretary of Defense was required to develop a total force
management plan that would provide the means to establish the
appropriate mix of manpower to perform the Department's mission
in consideration of the distinct value of each component of the
plan, whether by military (Active and Reserve Components),
civilian, or contractor personnel.
The committee is concerned, however, that the budget
request does not reflect the holistic approach called for in
Public Law 112-81. For example, the committee notes that the
Department of Defense is reducing its Active Duty and Reserve
Component end strength by 31,300 from fiscal year 2012-13,
reducing civilian full time equivalents (FTEs) by 10,517 over
the same period, and increasing contractor FTEs by 18,399.
Further, section 2330a of title 10, United States Code,
requires the Department to annually compile and review an
inventory of activities performed by contractors to help
provide greater insight into the number of contractor FTEs
providing services to the Department and the functions that
they perform. The committee notes that in its report, ``Further
Actions Needed to Improve Accountability for DOD's Inventory of
Contracted Services'' (GAO-12-357), the Government
Accountability Office concludes that a number of factors, and
in particular the Department of Defense's reliance on the
Federal Procurement Data System as the basis for the inventory
for most defense components, has limited the utility, accuracy,
and completeness of the inventory data. Further, the report
noted that the military departments' required reviews of the
inventories were incomplete, despite the fact that ``reliance
on contractors to support core missions . . . can place the
Department at risk of contractors performing inherently
governmental functions.'' Such issues underscore the need for
the Department to embrace a more holistic approach to workforce
management.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess what measures the Department of
Defense is taking to appropriately balance its current and
future workforce structure against its requirements, and to
provide a report of the findings to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 15, 2013. The Comptroller General should consider the
following when conducting the assessment:
(1) Historical trends on the levels of military,
civilian and contractor personnel;
(2) The process by which the Department identified
its civilian workforce requirements, especially in
light of the withdrawal from the Republic of Iraq and
impending withdrawal from the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan;
(3) What analysis the Department conducted to
identify core or critical functions and to determine
which of those activities would be most appropriately
performed by military, civilian, or contractor
personnel;
(4) The role of the Department comptroller in
determining workforce levels; and
(5) How the defense agencies and military departments
used the inventory of contracted services to inform
their fiscal year 2013 and 2014 budget submissions.
Assessment of Legal Authorities for Cyberspace Operations
The committee is aware that cyberspace operations are an
increasingly important capability for the Department of
Defense, but one where many areas are ill-defined. Despite a
number of reports on the subject, the committee remains
concerned that the legal and policy challenges associated with
many aspects of cyber operations have not been adequately
addressed. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats and Capabilities on March 20, 2012, the Commander, U.S.
Cyber Command indicated that the Department was working on
``getting the authorities correct that we need'' as a key task.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report by
March 1, 2013, assessing the legal authorities and policy
challenges of the Department of Defense to conduct full
spectrum cyber operations. The report should include the
following:
(1) A description of the legal authorities
underpinning the ability of the Department of Defense
to conduct full spectrum cyberspace operations;
(2) A description of the risk management process for
the Department, including how the Department assesses
and mitigates risks related to the international
ramifications of proposed cyberspace operations;
(3) A description of the policy framework affecting
the ability of the Department to conduct cyberspace
operations, including who manages specified policy
processes and who determines when and how changes may
be made to policy authorities;
(4) A description of how procedures governing Defense
Support of Civil Authorities are applied to cyberspace
operations;
(5) An analysis of any shortcomings in the legal and
policy framework governing cyberspace operations by the
Department of Defense;
(6) Any recommendations of the Secretary for changes
to such legal and policy framework; and
(7) Any other matters the Secretary considers
appropriate.
Commercial Satellite Imagery
The committee is aware that commercial imaging satellites
and services are key parts of the overhead imagery
architecture. Commercial satellite imagery provides releasable
electro-optical (EO) imagery and geospatial intelligence
product to support military, intelligence, diplomatic,
worldwide counterterrorism/counterproliferation operations,
disaster response, and humanitarian assistance. These resources
provide and maintain access to an unclassified imagery
repository for developing geospatial products that support
foundation based operations and sharing intelligence with host
government and coalition partners.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's fiscal
year 2013 budget request included a significant reduction to
the EnhancedView program, which modernizes the constellation of
commercial geospatial satellites and supports the purchase of
commercial satellite imagery. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by December 1, 2012, on the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council validated satellite imagery requirements and
how the Department plans to address those requirements.
Department of Defense Intelligence Activities
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently
began an effort to create new guidelines governing designations
for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) and the National
Intelligence Program (NIP). The committee commends this effort
and encourages continued coordination regarding such
designations. The committee also recognizes that this effort is
just one example of the unprecedented level of cooperation
throughout the U.S. intelligence community.
The committee notes, however, that consistent with the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (Public Law
108-458), the Secretary of Defense must retain the authority to
manage Department of Defense personnel, as well as develop and
manage the annual budget for intelligence activities supporting
the war fighter. Further, while the committee recognizes that
there are certain instances in which a military service may be
able to uniquely address particular national intelligence
requirements, the fundamental purpose of service intelligence
activities should be to respond to Department of Defense
requirements.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to designate as part of the MIP intelligence and
counterintelligence programs, projects, and activities of the
Department of Defense that primarily support Department of
Defense requirements, including: programs, projects, and
activities that are primarily conducted in support of military
operations or are primarily undertaken at the direction of, or
pursuant to requirements of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the military departments or the
combatant commands. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Director of National
Intelligence, to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by October 1, 2012, evaluating how these
principles compare to the new guidelines governing MIP and NIP
designations, identifying current designations that would be
inconsistent with these principles, and analyzing the
implications of such inconsistent designations as they relate
to the Secretary of Defense's ability to develop and manage the
intelligence budget for intelligence activities that support
the warfighter.
Improving the Strategic Management Plan
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has made important strides in improving the management and
oversight of its business operations since the establishment of
the Deputy Chief Management Officer and the Strategic
Management Plan (SMP) in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). In a resource-
constrained era, the committee believes that additional rigor
and attention to managing DOD operations is vital to ensuring
that the Department maintains technological superiority. To
support that goal, the committee encourages the Department to
adjust the SMP to increase its effectiveness as a management
tool. For instance, by incorporating the salient details and
measurable performance goals of the Better Buying Power
memorandum, the Department could better measure the
effectiveness of those acquisition-related guidelines. The
committee also believes that aligning the Performance
Improvement report more closely to the SMP would make it
possible to better measure progress in meeting the Department's
overall strategic management goals. Finally, the committee
believes that the Department should incorporate data on
transition of small business technologies used in major
acquisition programs into the SMP, as noted by the
recommendations of the Findings of the Panel on Business
Challenges in the Defense Industry.
National Centers of Excellence in Information Assurance Education and
Research
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
maintains a program, jointly sponsored by the National Security
Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, to designate
National Centers of Academic Excellence in Information
Assurance (IA) Education (CAE/IAE) and Research (CAE-R). The
goal of these programs is to reduce vulnerability in our
national information infrastructure by promoting higher
education and research in IA and producing a growing number of
professionals with IA expertise in various disciplines. The
designation as a CAE/IAE or CAE-R is valid for 5 academic
years, after which the school must successfully reapply in
order to retain its CAE designation. The committee encourages
the Department to find opportunities to leverage those centers
for the protection of the national energy infrastructure, and
as appropriate, to work with international academic and
professional partners such as the NATO Cooperative Cyber
Defense Center of Excellence in the research and development of
technologies, best practices and other means to defend critical
infrastructure including the national electric grid.
Policy Matters Related to the Defense Supply Chain
The committee is concerned that the authority for critical
materials policy is diffused throughout the Department of
Defense into offices that inadequately oversee this policy. For
example, section 187 of title 10, United States Code,
establishes a Strategic Materials Protection Board and charges
the Board with identifying and proposing risk mitigation steps
for such materials, but the Board has failed to comply with
congressional intent, fails to meet in accordance with
statutory requirements and, in its tenure, has only labeled one
material as critical, despite the reality of a complex global
supply chain for many materials upon which the Department of
Defense relies. Likewise, the Defense Logistics Agency has done
little to respond to the recommendations from the Department's
April 2009 report entitled ``Reconfiguration of the National
Defense Stockpile Report to Congress''. The committee also
notes that the focus of the office of Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy
(MIBP) continues to emphasize the capability and viability of
original equipment manufacturers and prime contractors, to the
exclusion of the raw materials suppliers and other critical
segments of the supply chain that support the defense
industrial base. The committee is also concerned that the
Department of Defense has paid little attention to the need for
assured availability of technical skills, competencies, and
data rights necessary to support the defense supply chain.
The committee continues to believe that a secure supply
chain is in the national interest and therefore, the office of
MIBP should place greater emphasis on the health of the defense
industrial base for raw material suppliers. The committee also
believes that the office of MIBP should serve as the lead
office for all Department of Defense policy matters related to
materials critical to national security, including policy
matters related to the supply chain for raw materials through,
and including, prime contractors. The committee further
believes that centralizing and focusing policy for supply of
critical materials within the greater industrial base strategy
of the Department should aid in mitigating some of the risk of
supply chain interruption by creating a balanced approach that
considers supply chain issues from a bottom-up view of raw
materials availability, as well as a top-down view from the
prime contractors that provide end items to the Department.
Therefore, the committee includes a provision elsewhere in this
title that would expand the role and responsibility of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary and would restructure the Strategic
Materials Protection Board.
Study on National Air and Space Intelligence Center and Marine Corps
Intelligence Activity Management Structure
The committee notes the management structure of the
National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) and the
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA) does not mirror the
management structure of the other military intelligence
centers. The demand for intelligence increased exponentially
over the past decade and the intelligence centers require a
stable, strong command structure to effectively meet the
information demand. The lack of a civilian senior executive
service (SES) executive director could impede managerial
effectiveness and limit interaction with colleagues from other
military and civilian organizations.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to examine the
command structure of NASIC and MCIA, respectively, with regard
to establishing a civilian SES executive director. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary
of the Navy to report the findings of the study along with any
recommendations the Secretaries may have relating to modifying
the command structure of the NASIC and MCIA to the
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2013.
The Role of National Guard Cyber Defense Units
The committee is aware of the important role that certain
National Guard units are playing in the computer network
defense (CND) of Department of Defense information systems and
computer networks. However, the committee is also aware that
some CND-related activities may not be limited to dedicated
cyber units. Moreover, it is unclear how the role of the CND-
related units may differ or be affected when activated in a
title 32 or State Active Duty-status.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
identifying the National Guard units that have a CND role for
the Department of Defense and a description of that role. The
briefing should also include a description of what activities
these units may be expected to perform when activated in a
title 32 or State Active Duty-status, and the policies and
authorities that are in place to govern those activities.
Use of Open Source Information in Intelligence Analysis
The committee believes that open source information is
under-utilized relative to other sources of information in key
areas of intelligence analysis. The committee also believes
that an increased emphasis on open source information would
improve overall analytical quality and value. In particular,
open source information on military or dual-use technology,
industrial activity and investment, technology markets and
projections of future activities provides a relatively
inexpensive information baseline that can be readily used with
U.S. allies and partners and to supplement information from
classified sources. The committee believes Department of
Defense intelligence elements with analytical responsibility
should maintain data on their efforts to increase use of open
source information.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Section 901--Additional Duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy and Amendments to
Strategic Materials Protection Board
This section would amend section 139c of title 10, United
States Code, by directing additional duties of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy. The duties would include prescribing policies and
procedures for ensuring reliable sources of materials that are
critical to national security. This section would also amend
section 187 of title 10, United States Code, by reconfiguring
the Strategic Materials Protection Board to include: the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy; an official within the Defense Logistics Agency
with responsibility for strategic materials; and designees from
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
Section 902--Requirement for Focus on Urgent Operational Needs and
Rapid Acquisition
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate a senior official to be the focal point within the
Department of Defense to lead the Department's urgent
operational needs and rapid acquisition efforts. The senior
official's responsibilities would include, but not limited to:
(1) acting as an advocate within the Department for issues
related to the Department's ability to rapidly respond to
urgent needs; (2) improving visibility across all urgent
operational needs entities and processes; and (3) ensuring
tools and mechanisms are used to track, monitor, and manage the
status of urgent operational needs, from validation through the
transition, including a formal feedback mechanism or channel
for the military services to provide feedback on how well
fielded solutions met urgent operational needs.
The committee notes that the Secretary's lack of visibility
over all urgent operational needs requests is due in part to
having no senior-level focal point who is given the
responsibility to manage, oversee, track, and monitor all
emerging capability gaps identified by the warfighter in
theater. According to the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), the Department has not established a senior-level focal
point to: (1) lead the Department's efforts to fulfill
validated urgent needs requirements; (2) develop and implement
Department-wide policy on the processing of urgent needs or
rapid acquisition; or (3) maintain full visibility over its
urgent needs efforts and the costs of those efforts. In
testimony before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces, GAO officials have discussed the benefits of
establishing a senior level point of focus to coordinate and
integrate various DOD efforts to address concerns, such as with
counterterrorism and the transformation of military
capabilities.
The committee recognizes that in June 2011, the Department
created a Senior Integration Group to serve as the single
authority for prioritizing and directing action to fulfill all
joint urgent operational needs (JUON) and to be the overarching
entity through which the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
previously established urgent needs organizations and task
forces (including the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Task Force,
and the Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) Task
Force) would report to the Secretary on the status of JUON
related actions. However, the committee notes that it is
unclear to what extent, if at all, the Senior Integration Group
would: (1) lead all Department-wide efforts to fulfill
validated urgent needs requirements; (2) develop and implement
Department-wide policy on processing urgent needs or rapid
acquisition; or (3) maintain full visibility over urgent needs
efforts and the costs of these efforts, as GAO has recommended.
The committee is concerned that without establishing a senior-
level focal point to address these issues, Department of
Defense officials may be unable to identify areas for
improvement, including consolidation, to prioritize validated
but unfunded requirements, to identify funding challenges and a
means to address such challenges, or ensure collaboration to
modify capabilities in development to meet several similar
urgent operational needs requirements and may be unable to
reduce any overlap or duplication that may exist as solutions
are developed or modified.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee expresses its
concerns with multiple funding streams, lack of coordination,
and the need for consolidation as well as improved oversight.
Further, the committee notes that section 804 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) required the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a comprehensive review of the Department's urgent
operational needs and rapid acquisition processes and report
the findings to the congressional defense committees by January
2012. The committee is concerned that this review is not
scheduled to be complete until August 2012.
Section 903--Designation of Department of Defense Senior Official for
Enterprise Resource Planning System Data Conversion
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate a senior official to be responsible for coordination
and managerial oversight of data conversion for all enterprise
resource planning systems within the Department of Defense.
Section 904--Additional responsibilities and resources for Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation
This section would amend section 139b of title 10, United
States Code, to have the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Developmental Test and Evaluation report directly to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics without the interposition of any other supervising
official, and clarifies the resources available to that
official.
Section 905--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--Annual Assessment of the Synchronization of Segments in
Space Programs That Are Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would direct the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit an annual
assessment for 5 years of the synchronization of satellite,
ground, and user terminal segments of space major defense
acquisition programs. For each such space program for which a
primary capability of such program will be operable by one
program segment at least 1 year after the date on which such
capability is operable by another program segment, the Under
Secretary would provide the cause of the delay and
identification of the steps the Department is taking to improve
the alignment of when the program segments become operable and
the related challenges, costs, and risks. The assessment would
also include a description of the impact to the mission of the
space system from the delay.
Section 912--Report on Overhead Persistent Infrared Technology
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence,
shall submit to the congressional defense and the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence within 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a report on Overhead Persistent Infrared
(OPIR) that specifically addresses the following: (1) an
assessment of whether there are further opportunities for the
Department and the intelligence community to capitalize on
increased data sharing, fusion, interoperability, and
exploitation; and (2) a recommendation as to how to better
coordinate efforts between the Department and the intelligence
community for exploitation of OPIR sensor data.
This section would also require that not later than 90 days
after the Department delivers its report to the congressional
defense committees, the Comptroller General of the United
States will assess the Department's report to ensure it is
comprehensive, fully supported, and sufficiently detailed.
Further, the Comptroller General shall identify any
shortcomings, limitations, or other matters that affect the
quality or findings of the Department's report on OPIR.
The committee is aware of significant investments in
Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) that span multiple agencies
and support a variety of missions such as missile warning,
missile defense, battlespace awareness, and technical
intelligence. The committee is also aware that the Department
and intelligence community have completed their Joint OPIR
Ground study and are in the process of completing an OPIR space
architecture study.
The committee commends the Department and the intelligence
community for establishing a Joint OPIR Ground Integrated
Program Office to improve the connectivity and sharing of OPIR
sensor data as it relates to theater missile warning and
defense, battlespace awareness, and technical intelligence. The
committee believes the defense and intelligence communities
have taken steps to improve the utilization and exploitation of
OPIR sensor data, but further efforts should be made to more
fully exploit the OPIR sensors.
Section 913--Prohibition on use of Funds to Implement International
Agreement on Space Activities That Has Not Been Ratified by The Senate
or Authorized by Statute
The section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this or any other Act for use by the Secretary
of Defense or the Director of National Intelligence to limit
the activities of the Department of Defense or the Intelligence
Community in outer space to implement or comply with an
international agreement concerning outer space activities
unless such agreement is ratified by the Senate or authorized
by statute.
The section would require a report not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment by the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense on the negotiations on an international
agreement concerning outer space activities. The report would
be required to include a description of which foreign countries
have agreed to sign such an international agreement and any
implications that the agreement may have on both classified and
unclassified military and intelligence activities of the United
States in outer space. The report would be required until the
President certifies the United States is no longer involved in
negotiations on an international agreement concerning outer
space activities. The report would be submitted to the House
and Senate Armed Services Committees, the foreign relations
committees, the intelligence committees, and the House
Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The report
would be submitted unclassified, with a classified annex as
necessary that may be submitted to the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees and the intelligence committees.
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress, including all committees with an interest
in outer space activities, an unclassified annual report to be
submitted not later than January 1 of each year detailing
foreign countries with counter-space programs that could be a
threat to the national security or commercial space systems of
the United States, and the name of such country. The Secretary
of Defense would be authorized to submit a classified annex to
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the
intelligence committees containing any classified information
required to be submitted for such report. The names of such
countries would be required to be released in the report on
unclassified basis, with waiver authority for the Secretary of
Defense if the Secretary determines it is in the national
security interest to waive such identification and submits to
Congress an explanation of why the Secretary waived such
requirement. The section would also provide that in any year in
which the Secretary does not submit the required report on
counter-space programs, the Department may not expend any funds
for travel expenses related to the negotiation of the
international agreement concerning outer space activities.
Section 914--Assessment of Foreign Components and The Space Launch
Capability of The United States
This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct an independent assessment of the
national security implications of continuing to use foreign
component and propulsion systems for the launch vehicles under
the evolved expendable launch vehicle program. This report
would be due no later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act to the congressional defense committees.
Section 915--Report On Counterspace Technology
The section would require a report, to be submitted to the
House and Senate Armed Services and foreign relations
committees, not later than 1 year after enactment and annually
thereafter for 2 years, which details key space technologies
that could be used, or are being sought, by a foreign country
with a counter space or ballistic missile program, and should
be subject to export controls by the United States or an ally
of the United States, as appropriate.
Subtitle C--Intelligence-Related Activities
Section 921--Authority To Provide Geospatial Intelligence Support To
Certain Security Alliances and Regional Organizations
This section would amend Title X, Section 443, United
States Code. It would give the Director of the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) the authority to provide
regional organizations with defense or security components and
security alliances of which the United States is a member with
imagery intelligence and geospatial information support. The
existing Title X, Section 443 authorities already gave the
Director of the NGA the authority to provide imagery
intelligence and geospatial information support to foreign
countries.
This section would also require, in each case of providing
imagery intelligence or geospatial information support to a
regional organization or security alliance, the Director of the
NGA:
(A) Ensure that such intelligence and such support are not
provided by such regional organization or such security
alliance to any other person or entity;
(B) Notify the congressional defense committees, Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate that the Director of the NGA has provided such
intelligence or support; and
(C) Coordinate the provision of such intelligence and such
support with the commander of the appropriate combatant
command.
Section 922--Technical Amendments to Reflect Change in Name of National
Defense Intelligence College to National Intelligence University
This section would provide a technical correction by
recognizing the Department of Defense's redesignation of the
``National Defense Intelligence College'' as the ``National
Intelligence University''.
Subtitle D--Total Force Management
Section 931--Limitation on Certain Funding Until Certification that
Inventory of Contracts for Services Has Begun
This section would withhold funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2013 as specified in the funding
table in section 4301 of this Act for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and the
Department of the Air Force until the defense agencies, the
Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force
comply with the Inventory of Contracts for Services, which is
mandated by section 2330a(c) of title 10, United States Code.
The committee continues to be disappointed that the defense
agencies, the Navy, and the Air Force have not fully
implemented the Inventory of Contracts for Services, a
requirement initially codified by section 807 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181). The committee notes that the Department of the Army has
successfully undertaken an extensive manpower and costing
inventory of all Army service contractors since 2002, and the
Army's inventory has been designated as the model for
implementation of section 807. The committee remains convinced
that the inventory is an important tool to provide transparency
in Government contracting and would be a beneficial tool for
decision-makers in their planning, programming, and budgeting.
Section 932--Requirement to Ensure Sufficient Levels of Government
Management, Control, and Oversight of Functions Closely Associated with
Inherently Governmental Functions
This section would amend section 129a of title 10, United
States Code, relating to the policy for total force management,
to require the Secretary of a military department or head of a
Defense agency with oversight of contractor personnel that are
performing functions closely associated with inherently
governmental functions to provide sufficient levels of
management, control, and oversight.
The committee recognizes that functions closely associated
with inherently governmental are, in appropriate circumstances,
performed by contractors. The committee believes that in order
to ensure full transparency of closely associated work being
performed by contractors, this information should be included
in the inventory of contract services required by section 2330a
of title 10, United States Code.
Section 933--Special Management Attention Required for Certain
Functions Identified in Inventory of Contracts for Services
This amendment would amend section 2330a(e) of title 10,
United States Code, relating to the inventory on contract
services, to require that special management attention be given
to functions identified in the inventory as being closely
associated to inherently governmental functions.
Subtitle E--Cyberspace-Related Matters
Section 941--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 a congressionally authorized use of force 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. 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 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.
Section 942--Quarterly Cyber Operations Briefings
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a quarterly briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on
significant military cyberspace operations that were carried
out by the Department of Defense in the preceding quarter.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 951--Advice on Military Requirements by Chairman of Joint
Chiefs of Staff and Joint Requirements Oversight Council
This section would amend section 153 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in identifying, assessing, and approving
military requirements to meet the national military strategy,
and in ensuring that life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance
objectives are achieved in the acquisition of material
solutions to meet such requirements. The section would also
amend section 181 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
the role of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in
assisting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in these
matters. Additionally, this section would amend section 2547 of
title 10, United States Code, to clarify the role of the Chiefs
of the Armed Forces in the development and certification of
requirements for equipping the Armed Force concerned.
Section 952--Expansion of Persons Eligible for Expedited Federal Hiring
Following Completion of National Security Education Program Scholarship
This section would amend section 1902(k) of title 50,
United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense and other
agencies and organizations with national security
responsibilities to appoint to the excepted service position
those individuals who have successfully completed the
requirements of the National Security Education Program (NSEP)
and meet eligibility for appointment. Award recipients are
required by NSEP to enter into a service commitment before
receipt of an award.
Section 953--Annual Briefing to Congressional Defense Committees on
Certain Written Policy Guidance
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
brief the congressional defense committees annually on the
defense planning guidance and the written policy guidance
regarding the preparation of contingency plans, developed
pursuant to section 113 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 954--One-Year Extension of Authority to Waive Reimbursement of
Costs of Activities for Nongovernmental Personnel at Department of
Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies
This section would extend for 1 year the current authority
under section 941(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as
amended by section 941 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383),
for the five Regional Centers for Security Studies of the
Department of Defense to waive the reimbursement costs required
under section 184(f) of title 10, United States Code, for
personnel of nongovernmental organizations and international
organizations to participate in activities of the centers. This
section would also require the Comptroller General of the
United States to assess the effectiveness of the Regional
Centers for Security Studies in meeting the centers' objectives
and advancing the priorities of the Department of Defense; the
extent to which the centers' perform a unique function within
the inter-agency community; measures of effectiveness and
impact indicators each center uses to internally evaluate its
programs; oversight mechanisms within the Department of
Defense; and the benefits, if any, of waiving reimbursement
costs for personnel of nongovernmental organizations and
international organizations to participate in activities of the
centers on an ongoing basis. The Comptroller General would be
required to submit a report of such assessment by March 1,
2013, to the appropriate congressional committees.
The committee seeks greater clarity regarding the
activities of the regional centers. In a fiscally constrained
environment, the committee wishes to ensure that the regional
centers focus on unique needs of the Department and the
combatant commanders, and do not replicate programs conducted
by other U.S. Government agencies or conduct programs best
suited for universities or civilian entities. This includes
``track II'' diplomatic programs, which should be conducted at
arm's length from the U.S. Government.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Counter-Drug Activities in Afghanistan
The committee recognizes the President's current plan to
cease combat operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
by the end of 2014. The Government of Afghanistan's ability to
provide security for its own population relies in part on its
ability to control narco-trafficking. The committee notes that
Afghanistan's link to the worldwide drug trade promotes
instability and provides funding for terrorist organizations
such as Al Qaeda. Following the end of combat operations in
2014, the counter-drug programs developed in Afghanistan will
remain vital to preserving stability in the region. The
committee acknowledges that over the course of Operation
Enduring Freedom, the United States has invested approximately
$2.25 billion in counter-drug training and programs. This
investment must not be neglected by the pending withdrawal from
Afghanistan.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to develop a strategy for counter-drug programs and funding
following combat operations in Afghanistan, and to submit a
report on the strategy to the congressional defense committees
by November 30, 2012. The strategy should outline the goals of
both the U.S. military and civilian personnel as well as the
Afghan military and police forces with respect to counter-drug
programs. Also, the committee notes the need to outline
timelines and resources necessary to accomplish these goals.
Humanitarian Efforts in U.S. Southern Command
The committee understands that the U.S. Navy will not
deploy a ship, such as the USNS Mercy or the USNS Comfort, on a
humanitarian mission in the Central or South American region in
2012. The committee is concerned that the Department of the
Navy is abandoning its longstanding practice of humanitarian
ship deployments. While the committee understands the
tremendous budgetary pressure facing the military, the presence
and annual deployment of naval ships with hospital-mission
capabilities is a humanitarian, diplomatic, and vital national
security exercise which the people of that region welcome.
Additionally, the committee recognizes the benefit of these
missions to the Armed Forces in developing both relationships
and skills that would prove beneficial should a contingency
situation arise in that region. The committee encourages the
Department of the Navy to take these factors into consideration
and develop a scheduled humanitarian deployment to the region
as soon as possible.
National Guard Bureau Counter-Drug Threat Based Resource Model
The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau's
counter-drug Program uses a threat based resource model to
allocate counter drug funding to be disbursed across the 54
states and territories. The committee is also aware that the
data used for the United States territories, specifically
Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, is not
accurate. The variables used in the model including narcotics
abuses, interdiction, and production of narcotics are not
representative of the real threat facing these territories and,
consequently, the United States homeland. The committee
recognizes that the threat of violence and regional instability
related to narco-trafficking and money laundering in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin
Islands directly impacts our national security.
The committee stresses the importance of accurate data
information and entry into the threat based resource model in
order to allocate funds and resources appropriately. The
committee therefore supports efforts for the National Guard
Bureau's counter-drug Program to reexamine their data inputs
into the threat based resource model concerning Puerto Rico and
the United States Virgin Islands with regard to narco-
trafficking and other illicit activities.
Study on Terrorist Organization Linkages in the Western Hemisphere
The committee notes the efforts made by the United States
and governments in the Western Hemisphere in combating counter-
drug and counter-terrorism activities. The committee commends
these governments for improving stability in the region as a
result of counter-drug initiatives.
However, the committee continues to be concerned about the
increasing presence of transnational criminal organizations and
internationally recognized terrorist organizations throughout
the Western Hemisphere. The committee is aware that
international terrorist organizations have participated in
narco-trafficking, human-trafficking, and money laundering
within the region, which has contributed to increasing
violence. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a study on terrorist organizations operating
in the Western Hemisphere and submit the findings of the study
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee
on Armed Services, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and
the House Foreign Affairs Committee by November 30, 2012. The
study should include the activities of state sponsors of terror
within the region, the current locations and organizational
structure of the international terrorist groups operating in
the Western Hemisphere, as well as a comprehensive analysis of
the activities and strategic intentions of Hezbollah, the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Quds Force, and Al Qaeda and its
associated movements in the Western Hemisphere.
Other Matters
Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Strategic
Portfolio Review
The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), to conduct a strategic
portfolio review of current, planned, programmed, and required
manned and unmanned medium-altitude intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities of the Department of
Defense during the period covered by the Future Years Defense
Program accompanying the President's request for fiscal year
2013. The committee directs the Chairman to report the results
of the review to the congressional defense committees and the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence within 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
In conducting the review, the Chairman should consider the
following:
(1) The complete architecture for medium and high-
altitude manned and unmanned systems, including
vehicles, sensors, communications, processing,
exploitation, analysis, and data storage and
dissemination;
(2) Requirements with respect to defense intelligence
information enterprise architecture and standards;
(3) Assumptions by the military departments regarding
the designation of manned and unmanned ISR aircraft
assets for joint operations with respect to making such
aircraft available to a Joint Theater Commander or
assigned to a military department;
(4) The projected budget for each program and project
during the period covered by the fiscal year 2013
Future Years Defense Program for manned and unmanned
medium-altitude ISR;
(5) The availability of manned and unmanned high-
altitude ISR capabilities to support the required
capabilities of the commanders of the combatant
commands; and
(6) Opportunities for transfer to other Government
agencies and/or foreign military sales of any quick
reaction ISR capability JROC finds to be unnecessary
for future requirements and/or is not a necessary
component of the architecture described in (1).
B-61 Gravity Bomb Tail Kit
The committee wants to ensure that the Air Force explore
all appropriate options for its new tail kit that can make it
as effective as possible to satisfy military requirements. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
conjunction with the Commander of U.S. STRATCOM and the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force, to report to the congressional
defense committees on the options under consideration for the
tail kit of the B61 gravity bomb, including any decisions that
reduce or limit the gravity bomb's accuracy. The section would
require that the report be provided to the congressional
defense committees in an unclassified report, with a classified
annex if necessary. The report shall be provided not later than
August 15, 2012.
Comptroller General Review of Combatant Commands
The committee notes that as the challenges to national
security have expanded, the Department of Defense faces
missions of increasing scope, variety, and complexity around
the world. To perform these missions, the Department operates
geographic combatant commands that conduct activities within
assigned areas of responsibility, to include stability,
security, transition and reconstruction operations, disaster
relief, and humanitarian assistance. Each combatant command
also has dedicated military service component commands and task
forces, which support the combatant command carry out its
missions. At a time of growing economic and fiscal constraints,
the committee believes that the Department must ensure the
combatant commands and its supporting elements have the
appropriate levels of personnel and resources to meet mission
requirements. The committee further notes that in a March 2012
report, the Government Accountability Office concluded that
there may be additional opportunities to consolidate
organizations and centralize functions across the Department,
to include the combatant commands.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the personnel and
resources of the combatant commands, its supporting military
service component commands, and other assigned task forces, and
to submit a report on the findings to the House Committee on
Armed Services by January 31, 2013. The review should cover the
following:
(1) The level of resources, both personnel and
overall support costs, associated with the commands
from fiscal years 2001 through 2011 to meet its
assigned missions and responsibilities;
(2) How the commands, its supporting military service
component commands, and other assigned task forces are
currently organized and structured to ensure efficiency
and avoid duplication within and among the various
organizations; and
(3) What steps, if any, the Department has taken to
reexamine size and structure in light of the new
strategic guidance issued in 2012.
Counterterrorism Policy and the Growing Threat of Al Qaeda Regional
Affiliates
The committee is concerned about the spread of Al Qaeda
regional affiliates and the lack of a comprehensive
counterterrorism strategy to mitigate these threats. The
committee has previously expressed concern in this area, most
recently in section 1032 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
The committee notes that the February 2012 U.S.
Intelligence Community Worldwide Threat Assessment depicted a
core Al Qaeda (AQ) with diminished operational importance and a
more decentralized leadership movement. The assessment further
noted that continued robust U.S. and partnered counterterrorism
(CT) efforts and pressure would likely lead to fragmentation of
the movement within a few years.
While core AQ is diminishing in operational importance, the
committee is concerned that regional Al Qaeda affiliates,
particularly in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, continue to
increase attacks both locally and globally, expand ideological
influence, and gain territorial control in strategic areas of
concern. Additionally, several senior national security
officials have identified Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP) in the Republic of Yemen as the most serious terrorist
threat to the United States. The committee notes that AQAP
continues to exploit local political instability and expand
local influence, particularly in the southern provinces. While
remaining an international threat, AQAP has expanded domestic
operations within Yemen to launch a wide-scale domestic
insurgency, thereby transforming the organization from an Al
Qaeda affiliate to a Taliban-like movement further threatening
the region. The committee notes that such gains provide AQAP
with greater freedom to move, plan, and project threats
regionally and internationally.
Similarly, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) continues
operations in northern Africa and the U.S. intelligence
community has noted that AQIM is seeking opportunities to
strike Western targets. The committee is concerned that post-
coup political instability in the Republic of Mali presents
another regional point of vulnerability given the concentration
of AQIM members in Mali's northern desert. There are also fears
that the Islamic extremist group Boko Haram in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has engaged with elements of AQIM,
suggesting a wider regional trend of shared tactics and
resources threatening security and stability throughout the
region.
Additionally, Al Shabaab in Somalia recently announced a
public merger with core AQ. Al Shabaab grew out of a
nationalist movement within Somalia to repel what was viewed by
Al Shabaab as Ethiopian troops occupying Somali lands. However,
with the help of AQ leaders such as the recently deceased AQ
operative, Huran Fazul, Al Shabaab has demonstrated the
capacity to strike outside of the Somali borders, as evidence
by the terrorist attacks in the Republic of Uganda during the
World Cup in July 2010. Additionally, Al Shabaab has been
responsible for recruiting would-be militant from the Somali
diaspora in the West.
The committee is concerned that the present strategy to
mitigate these threats lacks a holistic approach. While the
committee believes that kinetic options are an important
component to the overall strategy, the committee is concerned
that over-reliance on such options distracts from the need for
a comprehensive approach to reverse the gains made by these
regional affiliates and to protect the homeland. In particular,
a comprehensive strategy should place greater emphasis on
capacity building, particularly in fragile states or areas that
too easily become terrorist sanctuaries. For this reason, the
committee included section 1032 in Public Law 112-81, which
requires National Security Planning Guidance that would serve
as an interagency strategy to enhance the capacity of partner
governments to assist in eliminating the ability of Al Qaeda
and its affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.
The June 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism
highlights the need for building security partnerships as part
of comprehensive strategy. However, the committee believes that
U.S. and partnered counterterrorism (CT) efforts require
additional emphasis. Specifically, the committee believes that
activities that utilize U.S. Special Operations Forces and an
``indirect approach'' that leverages local and indigenous
forces should be used more aggressively and surgically in
Africa and the Arabian Peninsula in close coordination with and
in support of geographic combatant commander and U.S. embassy
country team requirements. The committee believes that current
indirect activities are not fully resourced and underutilized
to counter gains and preclude the expansion of Al Qaeda
affiliates in these regions.
The committee believes a comprehensive strategy should also
include greater prioritization of capture operations of high
value terrorists. In 2009, former CIA Director, General Michael
Hayden, noted that information obtained during interrogations
of senior AQ members provided the majority of U.S. intelligence
regarding the terrorist organization and had led to successful
follow-on operations throughout the world. The committee is
concerned that the lack of a comprehensive detention regime for
high-value terrorists has diminished U.S. intelligence on AQ
and its affiliates.
The committee believes that an aggressive strategy that
builds security partnerships, develops host nation
capabilities, leverages such an indirect approach, and
prioritizes capture operations would effectively supplement the
need for kinetic options and presents a more balanced approach.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the congressional defense committees within 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act and provide an update on
efforts to counter the spread of Al Qaeda regional affiliates
and other efforts to improve national security planning
guidance pursuant to section 1032 of Public Law 112-81.
Defense Business Board Public-Private Cooperation Review
The committee notes the 2010 National Security Strategy
highlighted the importance of public-private cooperation as
``critical to U.S. success at home and abroad.'' Public-private
cooperation is defined as the voluntary interaction between the
public and private sector through which both parties leverage
their respective resources in order to address an issue or
opportunity for greater impact and efficiency. The committee is
also aware that the Defense Business Board is conducting a
study to provide recommendations to the Department of Defense
on how to better use the advantages of public-private
cooperation.
The combatant commands have established public-private
cooperation offices in order to leverage best business
practices, expertise, and capabilities to enhance combatant
command theater security cooperation activities. However, these
initiatives have limited policy guidance from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff requested the Defense Business Board conduct a study to
provide recommendations by July 2012 to the Department on how
it could use the benefits of public-private cooperation. 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 by November 1, 2012, on the
conclusions of the Defense Business Board. The report should
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the Department's organizational
structures supporting public-private cooperation;
(2) An evaluation of the Department's successes and
lessons learned regarding public-private cooperation;
(3) An evaluation of the legal framework within which
the public-private cooperation efforts operate; and
(4) An assessment of the Defense Business Board
recommendations regarding public-private cooperation,
and the Department's plan, if any, to implement the
recommendations.
Disposition of Detainees in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
The committee is concerned about the disposition of
detainees currently held by U.S. forces under the law of armed
conflict in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. On March 9,
2012, the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Afghanistan regarding the ``Transfer of U.S.
Detention Facilities in Afghan Territory to Afghanistan.''
Pursuant to the MOU, Afghanistan affirmed the establishment of
an administrative detention regime. Also pursuant to the MOU,
the United States agreed to transfer Afghan nationals detained
by U.S. forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan within six
months to Afghan custody. Many of these detainees have been
identified by U.S. forces as ``enduring security threats'' to
the United States. The MOU states that Afghanistan will
``consult'' with the United States before releasing a detainee
and will ``consider favorably'' U.S. input regarding the
continued detention of transferred detainees.
The committee notes that while some transition of
responsibility for the detention of Afghan citizens is
consistent with the resumption of sovereignty by Afghanistan,
the committee is concerned about Afghanistan's capacity and
willingness to continue to detain these individuals or to
prosecute them. The committee notes that much of the
information related to the threat posed by these individuals is
classified U.S. intelligence, which makes prosecution in the
Afghan criminal justice system unlikely. The committee urges
the President and the Secretary of Defense to ensure that these
dangerous individuals will not return to the battlefield
following the transition to Afghan custody.
Electromagnetic Pulse Survivability
The committee remains concerned with the Nation's
preparedness to withstand, mitigate, and respond to the effects
of naturally occurring or manmade electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
The committee expressed concerns in the committee report (H.
Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The committee is also aware that the
Defense Science Board (DSB) has also noted similar concerns
over the Department of Defense's (DOD) planning and assessment
process. After conducting periodic independent assessments of
the Department's EMP survivability program, the DSB Task Force
on the Survivability of Systems and Assets to Electromagnetic
Pulse and other Nuclear Weapon Effects has noted the following
in its interim report from August 2011:
(1) Service assessments tend to identify mission
critical equipment instead of mission critical
capabilities;
(2) Fragmentation of responsibilities and lack of
priority for survivability of communications networks
and command and control (C2) systems hinders progress;
(3) Lack of engagement of Combatant Commands inhibits
visibility into the problem;
(4) The Department has limited understanding of
survivability of infrastructure critical to DOD
missions;
(5) Overall fragmentation of efforts translates into
little movement in developing a national enterprise
recommended by two previous DSB task forces; and
(6) Technical enterprise continuing to atrophy.
The committee agrees with the findings of the DSB, and
strongly urges the Department to expedite the completion of the
threat assessment and planning report called for in H. Rept.
112-78. The committee believes that any planning in this area
should identify critical DOD assets vulnerable to EMP, and to
determine appropriate actions to mitigate those
vulnerabilities. In addition, the committee encourages the
Department to also look at key supporting capabilities to
enhance EMP preparedness and survivability, such as workforce
and modeling and simulation capabilities.
Global Rebalancing of U.S. Special Operations Forces
The committee is aware of an ongoing effort within U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to comprehensively review
its present force structure to facilitate the accomplishment of
special operations activities as defined in section 167 of
title 10, United States Code. The committee understands that
USSOCOM is coordinating the review with the respective staffs
of the geographic combatant commands, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
committee further understands that these initiatives are
focused in several areas, including enabling and resourcing of
the Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs), the
development of a USSOCOM force management directorate, the
improvement of USSOCOM's interagency coordination and presence,
and the strengthening of global special operations forces (SOF)
relationships through the establishment of regional SOF
coordination centers. The committee understands that the
proposed changes in USSOCOM authorities pertain to command
authorities primarily identified within the Unified Command
Plan and that the changes being considered would reflect
USSOCOM's global area of operations and emphasize trans-
regional roles and responsibilities.
On balance, the committee supports this ongoing review of
U.S. Special Operations Forces and USSOCOM's coordination
within the Department of Defense. In particular, the committee
is encouraged by the potential establishment of a force
development directorate within USSOCOM that would consolidate
force development and management functions and ensure a unified
approach to training, education, and management of the force.
The committee expects such an initiative to greatly improve
deployment predictability and ultimately enhance operational
flexibility of the force. The committee encourages USSOCOM to
consider incorporating more formalized degree and non-degree
educational programs for officer and enlisted personnel and to
leverage existing programs and resources such as those within
the National Defense University's College of International
Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, and the Joint
Special Operations University.
While the committee supports efforts to establish
additional regional coordination centers similar to North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters,
the committee encourages USSOCOM to conduct a comprehensive
review of requirements in this area to include geographic
prioritization and resourcing and also additive funds through
Major Force Programs 2, 10, and 11. Additionally, the committee
encourages a concomitant review of existing statutory
authorities to support SOF security force assistance, training,
and advising to improve regional security and support
geographic combatant commander requirements. Such a review
should include potential modifications to current statutory
authorities presently being utilized with the goal of making
these existing authorities flexible enough to support SOF
activities.
While the committee is supportive of additional interagency
coordination efforts, the committee expresses concern at the
potential redundant costs associated with the establishment of
interagency coordination centers within the National Capitol
Region, associated infrastructure costs, information
technology, and how these potentially duplicative centers may
be rendering previous multi-million dollar investments such as
USSOCOM's Interagency Task Force redundant or obsolete. The
committee expects these interagency initiatives to be resource-
neutral. The committee further expects to be kept fully and
currently informed of these interagency initiatives.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command, in coordination with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict, to brief the congressional defense committees within
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act providing
an update on these initiatives and all efforts to globally
rebalance U.S. Special Operations Forces.
Humanitarian Mine Action and Security Force Assistance
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program is a key component of
U.S. security force assistance activities and programs. The
committee understands that the program advances geographic
combatant commander's (GCC) Theater Security Cooperation
Programs, strategies, and objectives by training host-nation
personnel in landmine and other explosive remnants of war
clearance, mine risk education, and victims' assistance. The
committee is aware the program is overseen by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity
Conflict and that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
performs financial management, including allocation of funds to
the geographic combatant commands.
The committee has supported the Department's HMA program
and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) expanded the definition of humanitarian
demining assistance to also include stockpiled conventional
munitions assistance so that the Department could implement
more holistic programs with host-nation partners. The committee
looks forward to reports from the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict on this
program and further understanding how the inclusion of
stockpiled conventional munitions assistance will contribute to
the overall program and specifically minimize threats posed by
dangerous stockpiles subject to proliferation. The committee
believes that in addition to generating good will within the
host-nation and the region, HMA programs aid in the development
of host-nation leadership and organizational skills, provide
access to geographical areas otherwise not easily available to
U.S. forces, and improves highly perishable U.S. skills in such
critical areas as language, cultural, and foreign internal
defense.
However, the committee remains concerned that the
Department's HMA program is under-utilized and under-resourced
given the present limited geographic scope of only 12 countries
and total investment of $2.6 million for fiscal year 2011, and
that research, development, testing and evaluation efforts have
been similarly under-resourced. Because of these shortfalls,
the committee is concerned that the potential for HMA programs
and projects to contribute to GCC Theater Security Cooperation
and security force assistance strategies is not being realized.
Further, the committee believes that HMA programs are not
globally prioritized properly in order to target specific
countries with the greatest strategic results in line with
larger U.S. Government security force assistance and national
security goals.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that
outlines the strategic value of a global HMA program as a part
of broader security force assistance strategies to include a
multi-year outlook. The briefing should also include efforts to
improve research, development, test, and evaluation in this
area, and ways to ensure coordination mechanisms exist to
determine whether counter improvised explosive device
technology could be applicable to HMA. In addition, the
briefing should outline ways to improve interagency
coordination with similar programs underway in the Department
of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Finally, the briefing should include a review of Active Duty
and Reserve Component resourcing requirements for global HMA to
include the potential inclusion of U.S. Special Operations
Forces as previously codified in section 167 of title 10,
United States Code.
Improving Certification and Accreditation for Information Technology
Systems
The committee has been concerned for several years that the
cumbersome nature of the information technology (IT)
acquisition process adds cost and complexity that delays the
deployment of useful capabilities for the warfighter. The
committee believes that the software certification and
accreditation processes are major contributors to that added
cost and complexity. Furthermore, the committee believes that
the Department of Defense's certification and accreditation
process should be addressed holistically by the rapid IT
acquisition process established by section 804 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), along with other contributors to system delays like test
and evaluation. As the Department implements Section 804, the
committee encourages the Department to review and, if
practical, consolidate the certification and accreditation
process to make it more efficient, and simpler for industry to
understand and comply with.
Independent Report on China's Nuclear Weapons Program
In 2011, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a
hearing concerning the nuclear weapons modernization programs
of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.
The committee is concerned that there may be gaps in U.S.
understanding of China's nuclear weapons program and its role
in China's national security, modernization plans,
capabilities, and other key details.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to direct an Federally Funded Research and Development Center
to convene a panel of nuclear weapons and military experts,
consisting of persons with significant Government or nuclear
weapons laboratory experience and subject matter expertise,
including past and current access to the intelligence community
and Department of Energy classified information, to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by April 15,
2013, that examines the Chinese nuclear weapons program. The
report should include: an assessment of China's nuclear
deterrence strategy, a historical perspective and the assessed
geopolitical drivers of its strategy; a detailed description of
China's nuclear arsenal, its capabilities (including the number
of weapons capable of being delivered at intercontinental
range), and associated doctrines (including targeting
doctrines); a comparison of United States nuclear forces,
including deployed, in reserve or awaiting dismantlement;
projections of possible future Chinese nuclear arsenals, their
capabilities, and associated doctrines; a description of
command and control functions and gaps; an assessment of
China's fissile material stockpile, and civil and military
production capabilities and capacities; an assessment of
China's production capacities for nuclear weapons and nuclear
weapon delivery vehicles; and a discussion of any significant
uncertainties surrounding China's nuclear weapons program.
The report should identify knowledge gaps, regarding
China's nuclear weapons program, and discuss the implications
of any such gaps for the security of the United States and its
allies. Lastly, the report should include any recommendations
for how to improve U.S. understanding of the Chinese nuclear
weapons program.
Information Operations Programs
The committee recognizes the improvement of the Department
of Defense's budget justification material related to
information operations (IO) programs, as well as in the
accounting for such programs. The committee continues to
support IO as a non-kinetic means of exerting influence and
furthering the national security goals of the United States. In
particular, IO provides a critical tool for countering the
ideological influence of violent extremist groups.
The committee further recognizes the need to constitute and
sustain a level of activity in the information domain even
after the U.S. drawdown in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The absence of overt hostilities does not mean an absence of
hostile intent towards the United States, and so vigilance in
the information environment should be maintained at a
reasonable level. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to determine the level of information operations
planning and support the U.S. will need in the future, and to
ensure that needed resources are programmed accordingly within
the base budget of future budget submissions. The committee
additionally looks forward to reviewing the report on
information operations and strategic communication as directed
in Section 1086 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Cost-Benefit Analysis
Tool
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has developed several cost-benefit analysis tools to enable
basic cost-effectiveness analysis of the acquisition and
allocation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) assets. The committee believes that to better achieve
full cost-effectiveness analysis, any further development of
such tools should include at a minimum the following:
(1) An inventory of all existing and planned DOD ISR
platforms and sensors, including programs of record and
quick reaction capabilities, through the Future Years
Defense Program;
(2) Validated attributes/capabilities of each
platform and sensor, concept of operations for their
employment, and performance data;
(3) Commanders' prioritization of platform and sensor
attributes, using a zero-sum ranking scheme that forces
trade-offs;
(4) Full cost data (both base and incremental wartime
costs to include procurement, research and development,
operation and sustainment and other life cycle costs);
and
(5) Other contextual inputs as needed (for example,
the type of conflict, phase of conflict, target deck,
and so forth).
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, in coordination with the Commander, Joint Forces
Functional Command for Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to brief the congressional defense committees and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence within 270 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act on the development
and use of such tools to inform pre-milestone A ISR acquisition
decisions and the allocation of ISR assets to the combatant
commands.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force
The committee commends the Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force on the instrumental role it has
played in responding quickly to warfighter ISR needs in the
area of responsibility of U.S. Central Command. The committee
is aware that the ISR Task Force was established by the
Secretary of Defense as a means to rapidly assess and address
near-term ISR requirements, gaps, and shortfalls that arise
outside the normal budgetary planning and programming cycles.
The Task Force has increased the number of fielded ISR
platforms by over 200 percent in the 5 years it has existed,
playing a key role in force protection and in the find, fix,
finish cycle.
The committee notes the Secretary of Defense is reviewing
the acquisition process for the rapid fielding of capabilities
in response to urgent operational needs, as directed by section
804 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). As part of this review,
the committee expects the Secretary to address the present and
future role of the ISR Task Force. The committee notes the
Secretary should consider how the Joint Functional Component
Command for ISR could assume the role of helping combatant
commands refine its ISR requirements and how the Joint Staff's
operational needs process could best address time-sensitive
requests for ISR. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the congressional defense committees and the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence within 90 days
of meeting the reporting requirements directed by section 804
of Public Law 111-383, on the Secretary's findings regarding
the role of the ISR Task Force.
Military Auxiliary Radio System
The committee appreciates the important role played in
support of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the armed forces
by volunteer and amateur radio operators who comprise the
Military Auxiliary Radio System (MARS). Under Department of
Defense Instruction (DODI) 4650.02 ``Military Auxiliary Radio
System'', MARS provides contingency radio communications
support to U.S. Government operations. The committee
understands that use by MARS of high-frequency (HF) radio to
convey situational awareness and information in the event of
natural or man-made disaster provides an important back-up to
more technologically sophisticated communications systems that
can be disrupted or destroyed as a result of unanticipated
failures or deliberate hostile actions.
DODI 4650.02 places policy oversight for MARS within the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer
(ASD(NII)/DoD CIO). However, since NII has been disestablished,
the committee is concerned that oversight of the MARS program
is unclear, and that there is a lack of standardization in
policies, processes, and procedures among the three MARS
branches within the Army, Air Force, and Navy-Marine Corps
since MARS is independently managed within each service. As
such, the committee encourages the Department to clarify and
maintain policy oversight of MARS within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and to update DoDI 4650.02 with respect to
the disestablisment of NII. Further, the committee urges the
Department to appoint an individual manager with authority and
responsibility for coordination of MARS policies and activities
across each of the three MARS branches and within the
Department to ensure holistic policy oversight of the MARS
program. The committee also encourages the service secretaries
and the geographic combatant commanders to integrate MARS more
fully into their operational planning and activities, in
accordance with the guidance and direction outlined in DoDI
4650.02.
Navy Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer Program
The committee recognizes that Navy Emergency Preparedness
Liaison Officers (NEPLOs) serve as senior Navy representatives
for Defense Support to Civil Authorities during emergencies and
events of national significance such as hurricanes, forest
fires, flooding, and earthquakes. The committee understands
that NEPLOs depend heavily on an ability to communicate rapidly
with Service and interagency partners and to maintain an
accurate common operating picture that facilitates Defense
Support to Civil Authorities and interagency response efforts.
However, the committee is concerned that the present
communications and information sharing enterprises lack tools
to manage and ensure readiness which may impede response times
and potentially contribute to loss of life and property.
The committee therefore encourages the Department of
Defense to consider improvements to readiness, information
sharing, communications, and situational awareness tools and
technologies in support of NEPLO and similar programs that
provide Defense Support to Civil Authorities during emergencies
and events of National significance.
Personal Mobile Device Policy
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
developing a policy that would allow government personnel to
utilize their own personal mobile devices to access work-
related email and documents securely. The committee recognizes
that this would reduce the need for government employees to
carry more than one mobile computing device both at work and at
home. However, the committee also recognizes that there are
significant security and network management challenges to
implementing such a policy that make it difficult to execute in
a short time frame. The committee believes there are a number
of efficiencies that might be gained in the long run, and
encourages the Department to continue developing this policy,
and to it implement it as expeditiously as possible.
Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination of Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
The committee notes the importance of intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for the
warfighter. New technology combined with a wartime environment
has led to an exponential growth in ISR collection capability
over the past decade. The committee notes previous Government
Accountability Office reports that found the Department's
capacity for processing, exploiting, and dissemination is
limited and has not kept pace with the increase in collection
platforms and combat air patrols. The committee believes the
solution will be a holistic approach that includes personnel as
well as new tools and technology. The Department has been
trying to address this, but continues to face technical,
planning, manpower, and training challenges. The committee
notes that these challenges may be exacerbated as the
Department begins to shift operational and ISR focus to other
regions and modes of operation that will differ from recent and
ongoing operations, in addition to the future integration of
wide area airborne surveillance technologies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, the Senate Select Committees on
Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by March 1, 2013, addressing the extent that the
Armed Services:
(1) Have developed a structure to process, manage,
store, fuse, tag, search and analyze the ISR data that
is currently collected and is scalable to future data
collection;
(2) Have sufficient and secure communications and
information architectures to manage ISR data;
(3) Have a plan to develop capabilities, or use
identified established training centers, to train a
workforce adequate to meet current and future ISR
needs; and,
(4) Are making use, or investing in, technology to
automate and efficiently process, exploit, and
disseminate ISR data.
Public Key Infrastructure Tokens for Classified Network Access
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is currently pursuing an initiative that would allow access to
the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) using
dedicated public key infrastructure (PKI) tokens. This
initiative mirrors procedures taken by the Department in
implementing the use of a common access card (CAC) to access
unclassified DOD networks. Both efforts are intended to provide
authenticated identity management that will enable a common
secure computing environment and integrity for all data moving
within DOD networks.
The committee supports the development and deployment of
PKI tokens for SIPRNET access, but encourages the Department to
do more to enable specific network applications to access such
tokens. The committee recognizes that PKI-enabled network
access is a necessary first step to improve network security,
but will also support role-based access control that will make
both external and internal unauthorized access to information
significantly more difficult. The committee believes that
implementing PKI tokens for applications as well as network
access will improve the network security posture of the
Department and address concerns about insider threats expressed
by the committee in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Report by Commander U.S. Strategic Command on Locating and Targeting
Mobile Ballistic Missiles
The committee is aware that nations are increasingly
attempting to deploy mobile ballistic missiles believing that
they will be immune from, or significantly more difficult to
defend against, U.S. military forces, including missile defense
systems. The committee believes that the United States may need
to develop and deploy capability to locate and target mobile
ballistic missiles and the committee is interested in how such
capability, if deployed, would impact requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Strategic Command to provide an unclassified report in form to
the congressional defense committees by November 15, 2012, with
a classified annex, if necessary, on its ability to locate and
target, with U.S. military forces, mobile ballistic missiles.
Report on Command and Control Arrangements of the European Phased
Adaptive Approach and NATO Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
The committee is aware that the European Phased Adaptive
Approach (EPAA), which is a U.S. contribution to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), will at times be under the
command of the Commander, U.S. European Command (EUCOM), and at
times be under the command of NATO. The committee is concerned
that it is not yet clear as to how this command structure will
work in practice. The concern is amplified by the committee's
understanding that the NATO system, of which the EPAA is an
element, will be declared to have achieved interim operating
capability at the May 2012 Chicago Summit.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
by July 15, 2012, specifying the command and control
arrangements for U.S. missile defense systems deployed in
Europe when under U.S. command and under NATO command. The plan
should focus on who will maintain fire control authority, when
such authority will change hands between EUCOM and NATO, and
what the concept of operations will be for the defense of
Europe, including priority of defense of U.S. deployed forces
and NATO territory using available missile defense interceptor
inventory.
Report on Joint Task Force for U.S. Northern Command
The committee is aware that the mission of U.S. Northern
Command (USNORTHCOM) is to provide command and control of
Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to
coordinate defense support of civil authorities. The committee
is also aware that USNORTHCOM plans, organizes and executes
homeland defense and civil support missions, but has few
permanently assigned forces. The committee understands that
USNORTHCOM is assigned forces whenever necessary to execute
missions, as ordered by the President of the United States or
the Secretary of Defense.
The committee is also aware that USNORTHCOM has several
standing joint task forces assigned to deal with and
concentrate on specific responsibilities, including Joint Task
Force Alaska, Joint Task Force Civil Support, Joint Task Force
North.
The committee recognizes that improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) have become the weapon of choice for insurgents and
terrorists across the globe and that such devices could pose a
considerable threat if employed systematically across the
homeland.
The committee also recognizes that the Department of
Defense has developed a uniquely trained and highly qualified
Joint Service Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) community
capable of rendering safe and mitigating IED threats, as well
as considerable Counter-IED (C-IED) technologies and
capabilities. To deal with potential emerging homeland defense
and defense support to civil authorities in the areas of EOD
and C-IED the committee recognizes the potential need for a
standing joint task force to augment and provide specialized
capabilities for civil authorities when properly requested and
authorized.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than November 12, 2012 that contains a detailed
programmatic assessment of all current and future NORTHCOM EOD
and C-IED capabilities and operational requirements to include
any potential capability gaps as well as the strategies and
plans to address these capability gaps. The committee expects
the report to also include the advisability and feasibility of
creating a Joint Task Force for EOD and C-IED within NORTHCOM
and how this task force could help mitigate any potential
capability gaps and shortfalls that may be identified by this
assessment to include force structure requirements.
Report on the Assessed Efficacy of the Location of X-band Radar on the
East Coast of the United States
The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency
continues to maintain a large X-band radar located on Kwajalein
Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a radar that was
intended to be deployed in the Czech Republic prior to the
Administration's decision to cancel the European Third Site
deployment. The committee believes this radar, formerly known
as the European Midcourse Radar, could be usefully employed by
the United States for its missile defense by contributing to
the acquisition, tracking, and discrimination of ballistic
missile threats launched from the Middle East.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to conduct a study the costs and capabilities
for homeland missile defense involved with basing this radar at
an advantageous site along the East Coast of the United States,
and to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee
by September 30, 2012, on the results of the study.
Report Regarding Impacts of W76 Nuclear Warhead Life Extension Program
Delay
On February 16, 2012, the Chief of Naval Operations,
testified to the committee that the Navy is concerned with the
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) plans to slow
the production schedule of the W76 nuclear warhead life
extension program (LEP), stating that ``we are concerned beyond
the [fiscal year 2013] submission by the NNSA with regard to
their warhead upgrade . . . when we look at [fiscal year 2014]
and up, we are concerned.'' The committee shares the Navy's
concern about NNSA's production slow-down for the W76 LEP,
particularly if the slowed schedule risks not meeting the
operational or hedge requirements of the Navy or U.S. Strategic
Command.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval
Operations, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, the Director of the Navy's Strategic Systems Programs,
and the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by August 15, 2012, on
if and how the NNSA's proposed schedule for the W76 LEP meets
the operational and hedge stockpile requirements of the Navy
and U.S. Strategic Command throughout the full life of such
LEP. If the plan does not meet such requirements, the report
should include a detailed description of why it does not.
Finally, the report should include a description of the impacts
of the slow-down on the Navy and U.S. Strategic Command.
Role of State Government Sponsored Aerospace Infrastructure
The committee recognizes that it is in the national
security interest of the United States to reduce the cost of
launching space payloads into orbit. The committee also
recognizes the legitimate role of state government-sponsored
aerospace infrastructure as space assets that may be used to
reduce the cost of space access and to preserve the United
States capabilities through providing alternative options for
both equatorial and polar orbits. To provide resilience and
assurance and to reduce the cost of space operations, the
Department of Defense should consider, where operationally and
economically feasible, state government space capabilities in
providing operational solutions which enhance the space program
for the United States.
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 will
conduct a quadrennial defense review (QDR) during 2013. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the committee
encouraged the Secretary, among other things, 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. In addition, the committee observed the
importance for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
include in his advice to the Secretary the research and
development needs of the combatant commanders. As the Secretary
conducts the 2013 QDR, the committee commends the language in
last year's committee report to him for his consideration.
Resiliency and Survivability for Nuclear Air-Launched Cruise Missile
Basing
As the United States reduces its deployed nuclear forces in
the coming years to comply with limits established in the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the resiliency and
survivability of the nation's enduring strategic nuclear
deterrent assumes a new level of importance. Since the
decertification of one Air Force Weapons Storage Area (WSA) in
2007, the Air Force has relied upon a single WSA to meet U.S.
Strategic Command's nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile
requirement.
The committee notes that following serious Air Force
security incidents in 2006 and 2007, the September 2008 Phase 1
Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear
Weapons Management concluded that ``The closure of the WSA at
one of the bomber bases was a significant mistake with a
negative operational impact,'' and that ``[the closure]
simplifies enemy targeting and creates more concentration of
vulnerability for the B-52 bomber force.'' In response, the Air
Force requested and Congress appropriated $73 million for
activities to recertify and reopen the closed WSA. However, in
testimony before the committee in February 2011, Air Force
Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz stated that the Air
Force had decided not to pursue these activities because of
budget constraints.
A reconstituted second WSA could enhance the resiliency of
the bomber force, provide redundancy in a critical national
security mission, and reduce operational risk. Consolidation of
the old WSA's existing security perimeter and installation of
modern detection and denial systems could reduce security
personnel requirements and result in significant cost savings
from original estimates. Accordingly, the committee encourages
the Secretary of the Air Force to reexamine plans, including
requirements and costs, for reconstituting a second nuclear
weapons storage capability for nuclear-armed air-launched
cruise missiles.
Use of Existing Authorities for U.S. Special Operations Forces
The committee commends the efforts by the Commander, United
States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), to rebalance our
Special Operations Forces (SOF) in terms of geographic focus
and a return to traditional SOF activities beyond the counter-
terrorism focus of recent years. The committee understands that
the Commander, USSOCOM may require broader authorities, both
command and statutory, to accomplish some of the command's
stated goals. The committee is aware of a legislative proposal
initiative by USSOCOM that may consider such broader
authorities. However, elsewhere in this report, the committee
has expressed concern that some existing authorities are not
exercised to their full potential due to self-imposed
bureaucratic constraints. In that context, the committee would
like to highlight two existing authorities which it believes
are well-suited for the Commander, USSOCOM's rebalancing
effort.
First, the committee believes that the Joint Combined
Exchange Training (JCET) authority (10 U.S.C. 2011) is a
valuable tool for the training of United States Special
Operations Forces (SOF). JCET events and activities with host
nation military forces improve joint and allied readiness and
interoperability, facilitate the exchange of techniques, and
mutually enhance military professionalism. The activities often
enhance U.S. influence in the host countries, providing an
invaluable means of establishing critical military-to-military
relationships. JCETs are also an important part of a Geographic
Combatant Commander's theater engagement plan. However, the
committee believes that, while JCET engagements have most
recently taken place in 50 countries per year, these
engagements have not fully realized their potential due to
insufficient resourcing and an inability to persistently engage
on a recurring basis in key regions and countries.
The committee also notes that section 2011 title 10, United
States Code, authorizes the training of a friendly foreign
country's ``armed forces and other security forces'' and that
this training is therefore not limited to the foreign country's
Special Operations Forces. Further, the committee notes that
while the purpose of the authority is to ``train the Special
Operations Forces of a [United States] combatant command,''
that this training is not limited to only counter-terrorism
related training. Therefore, as the Geographic Combatant
Commands develop JCET engagements, the committee encourages
them to consider JCETs that address the broader requirements of
a friendly foreign country's armed forces and other security
forces, and also the full range of Special Operations
Activities as described by section 167 title 10, United States
Code, as appropriate.
Second, the committee understands that the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) routinely provides funding to the
commanders of the geographic combatant commanders to conduct
activities authorized by the Combatant Commander Initiative
Fund (CCIF) (section 166a of title 10, United States Code). The
committee believes that the Commander of USSOCOM, by virtue of
commanding a global and unified combatant command, is fully
eligible for participation in the CCIF process. Moreover,
USSOCOM's mission areas, as set forth in section 167 of title
10, United States Code, make it particularly suited to
accomplish certain CCIF-related activities. Therefore, the
committee recommends that the CJCS provide guidance on how
USSOCOM might directly participate in the CCIF, including how
to coordinate with any relevant geographic combatant commanders
as required, or how changes to the Unified Command Plan may
provide USSOCOM with more autonomy to execute CCIF activities.
The committee also encourages the Commander, USSOCOM to be
proactive in developing CCIF activity proposals for the
consideration of the CJCS.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team Reductions
The committee believes that continued weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) threats demonstrate the enduring need for a
robust domestic consequence management (CM) enterprise that is
integrated across State and Federal units. The committee notes
that the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) directed the
Department of Defense (DOD) to ``improve the responsiveness and
flexibility of consequence management response forces.'' In
response to QDR concerns, the committee believes that the
Department and National Guard Bureau (NGB) produced a new
domestic CM response organizational concept better aligned with
the National Strategy for Homeland Security and the National
Response Framework.
With the domestic CM response enterprise, the committee
notes that the current 57 state-based WMD Civil Support Teams
(CSTs) constitute the initial rapid response force to support
local first responders; and that CSTs provide unique
capabilities and expertise such as WMD detection and
identification and rapid assessments of hazardous material,
often not available to local responders. The committee further
notes that the Secretary of Defense certified the 48th
(Florida) and 24th (New York) WMD CSTs in 2011 and 2010,
respectively. The President's fiscal year 2013 request,
however, eliminated funding for the 48th and 24th CSTs. The
committee is concerned that disestablishing these two CSTs may
hinder response times to WMD events and increase the challenge
of integrating operations with other State and Federal WMD
response teams. The committee notes that neither the Department
nor NGB coordinated with, or solicited input from, affected
State and local authorities before making this decision.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that these
disestablishments will occur right after funding was expended
to train, equip, and prepare CSTs for certification.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to deliver a report to the House Committee on Armed Services no
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. The report
should discuss the justification for eliminating funding to the
48th and 24th CSTs. Furthermore, the report should cover the
following matters:
(1) The impact on operational capability, resourcing,
response, potential gaps in integration with remaining
CSTs and other State and Federal WMD CM response teams;
(2) The expected budgetary savings over the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP) generated by
disestablishing the 48th and 24th CST;
(3) The costs of preparing the 48th and 24th CST for
certification;
(4) Resulting changes to the latest domestic WMD CM
response construct;
(5) Plans for future reduction in any CSTs over the
FYDP; and
(6) A strategy for engaging with State and local
authorities if the Department plans to eliminate
additional CSTs.
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
2013 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the
total amount transferred under this authority to $3.5 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.
Section 1003--Annual Report on Armed Forces Unfunded Priorities
This section would require the military service chiefs, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the Commander of the
United States Special Operations Command to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report containing a list of
the unfunded priorities for the Armed Force under the
jurisdiction of that member or commander, not later than 30
days after the date on which the budget for a fiscal year is
submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1011--Extension of the Authority of the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau To Establish and Operate National Guard Counterdrug
Schools
This section would authorize the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau to continue to operate the five National Guard
Counterdrug Schools currently in existence for an additional
period of 5 years. The five schools are located in St.
Petersburg, Florida; Johnston, Iowa; Meridian, Mississippi;
Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania; and Camp Murray, Washington.
The committee notes that four of the five schools were
previously authorized by section 901 of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-469). The fifth school has been in operation since 2009.
The budget request contained $999.4 million for the
Counternarcotics Central Transfer Account within Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide. Funding for the National Guard
Counterdrug Schools is included as part of this request.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends $999.4 million,
the amount of the President's budget request, for the
Counternarcotics Central Transfer Account.
Section 1012--Reporting Requirement on Expenditures To Support Foreign
Counter-Drug Activities
This section would extend, by 1 year, the reporting
requirement on expenditures to support foreign counter-drug
activities under section 1022(a) of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public
Law 106-398), as most recently amended by section 1008 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81).
Section 1013--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 1007 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Section 1014--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces To Provide
Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counter-Terrorism
Activities
This section would extend, by 1 year, the support for 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 1004 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1021--Policy Relating To Major Combatant Vessels of the Strike
Forces of the United States Navy
This section would amend section 1012 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) which required all combatant vessels of the strike forces
of the Navy, including all new classes of such vessel, be
designed with integrated nuclear power systems. This amendment
would require the Secretary of the Navy to notify the
congressional defense committees if, after a cost benefit
analysis, the Secretary decides it would not be practical for
the new class of ships to be nuclear powered.
Section 1022--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Delayed Annual
Naval Vessel Construction Plan
This section would fence some funds available to the United
States Navy until the annual shipbuilding plan has been
submitted to Congress.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Section 1031--Findings on Detention Pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Enacted in 2001
This section would provide several congressional findings
related to the detention authority provided by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
Section 1032--Findings Regarding Habeas Corpus Rights
This section would provide two congressional findings
related to the writ of habeas corpus.
Section 1033--Habeas Corpus Rights
This section would state that nothing in the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) or the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of
habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under
Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained
in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (Public Law 107-40).
Section 1034--Extension of Authority To Make 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 require a report that outlines
future requirements of the authority.
Section 1035--Prohibition on Travel to the United States for Certain
Detainees Repatriated to the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands
This section would prohibit the rights and benefits
afforded by section 141 of the applicable Compact of Free
Association (Public Laws 99-658; 108-188) to be afforded to an
individual currently or previously detained at U.S. Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who has been repatriated to the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, or the Republic of Palau.
Section 1036--Prohibition on the Use Of Funds for the Transfer or
Release of Individuals Detained at United States 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 2013 to transfer or release detainees at U.S. Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States,
its territories, or possessions.
Section 1037--Requirements for Certifications Relating to the Transfer
of Detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year 2013 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, provides a written
certification to Congress addressing several requirements at
least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual.
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.
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive
the general prohibition against transfers to a foreign country
if there is a confirmed case of any individual transferred from
U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as two of the
requirements for other transfers. In these instances, the
Secretary must determine that alternative actions will be
taken, that it is not possible to certify the risks have been
completely eliminated, and that actions taken will
substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism.
Whenever the Secretary uses the waiver, he must provide a
report that includes a copy of the waiver, determination, a
statement of the basis for the determination, and a summary of
the alternative actions to be taken.
Section 1038--Prohibition on Use of Funds To Construct or Modify
Facilities in the United States To House Detainees Transferred from
United States 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 2013 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 1039--Reports on Recidivism of Individuals Detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that Have Been Transferred
to Foreign Countries
This section would require two different reports relating
to transfers of individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These required reports represent
two of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigation's report following an investigation
of the transfer and release of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The
committee is concerned that these recommendations have not
otherwise been adopted by the Department of Defense and other
agencies. In the future, it is the strong preference of the
committee that such recommendations be addressed without
requiring legislation.
Section 1040--Notice and Report on Use of Naval Vessels for Detention
of Individuals Captured Outside Afghanistan Pursuant To the
Authorization for Use of Military Force
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services no later than 5 days after
detaining an individual pursuant to the Authorization for Use
of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) outside the United States
on a U.S. naval vessel. This section would also require the
Secretary to submit a report on the use of U.S. naval vessels
for detention purposes.
Section 1041--Notice Required Prior to Transfer of Certain Individuals
Detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the appropriate congressional committees no later than
10 days before the transfer of any third country national
detainee held at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan,
to the custody of the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan or of any other country. This section would also
require the Secretary to provide additional assessments and
certifications regarding such transfers.
Section 1042--Report on Recidivism of Individuals Formerly Detained at
the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the relevant congressional committees a report
addressing certain issues relating to recidivism of individuals
formerly detained at the Detention Facility in Parwan,
Afghanistan.
Section 1043--Additional Requirements Relating to the Transfer of
Individuals Detained at Guantanamo to Foreign Countries and Other
Foreign Entities
This section would amend section 1028 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) to require the Secretary of Defense to provide certain
certifications prior to the transfer of an individual detained
at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by not later than
90 days before the transfer. This section would also require an
assessment of the likelihood that the individual to be
transferred will engage in terrorist activity after the
transfer takes place, a detailed summary of the individual's
history of associations with foreign terrorist organizations,
and the individual's record of cooperation while in Department
of Defense custody.
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces
Section 1051--Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States
This section would restate the sense of Congress regarding
its role in oversight of the Nation's nuclear weapons
employment strategy, plans, and options. This section would
hold that congressional oversight is vital to the oversight of
the Nation's nuclear weapons employment strategy, plans, and
options, and that the Secretary would be required to provide
such briefings to the chairmen and ranking members of the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services, and such professional staff as they designate,
not later than March 15th of each year.
Section 1046 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) that also expressed the
sense of the Congress regarding its oversight function over the
Nation's nuclear weapons employment strategy, plans, and
options. Section 1046 of Public Law 112-81 was informed by the
understanding that the oversight process in place in the early
1990s whereby the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services, including designated
professional staff, were afforded extraordinary access to the
Nation's nuclear weapons employment strategy, plans, and
options. The conferees were encouraged by a letter that from
the Secretary of Defense on November 2, 2011, indicating this
oversight process would resume but, to date, it has not
resumed.
Section 1052--Commitments for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Modernization
The section consists of a series of Congressional findings
on U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile modernization.
Section 1053--Limitation and Report in the Event of Insufficient
Funding for Modernization of Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
The section states the Sense of Congress regarding the
linkage between the New START Treaty and modernization of the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile in Condition 9 of the Resolution
of Ratification of the treaty.
The section would amend section 1045(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) to require a report in any year in which funding is
appropriated for nuclear modernization activities that is less
than projected in the November 2010 update of the plan referred
to in section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) within 60 days of the
determination of insufficient funding. The section would
prohibit the reduction of U.S. deployed nuclear warheads until
the President certifies that the resource shortfall identified
in the report has been addressed and 120 days have elapsed
following such certification. The limitation on reductions
would not apply regarding reductions made to ensure the safety,
security, reliability and credibility of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile and delivery systems.
Section 1054--Progress Of Modernization
The section would limit any funds made available for fiscal
year 2012 or any fiscal year thereafter to implement a new
nuclear weapons employment strategy until a period of 1 year
after a report detailing such strategy has been submitted to
Congress.
The section would also provide that for fiscal years 2012
through 2021, no funds made available for each such fiscal year
may be used to carry out the decisions of the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review Implementation study that would alter the
nuclear weapons employment strategy, guidance, plans or options
of the United States until the President certifies that the
resources projected in February 2011 update to the report
required under section 1251 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) have
been requested from the Congress, have been provided in
appropriations enacted by the President, and the sequestration
mechanism of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 have been repealed or otherwise terminated.
Section 1055--Limitation On Strategic Delivery System Reductions
The section would require the President to annually certify
in writing whether plans to modernize or replace strategic
delivery systems are fully resourced and being executed at a
level equal to or more than the levels set forth in the
November 2010 update to the plan referred to in section 1251 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84).
The section would further prohibit the use of funds to
reduce, convert, or eliminate strategic delivery systems as a
result of the New START treaty or otherwise unless the
President is able to issue the required certification. The
section would except from the limitation reductions made to
ensure the safety, security, reliability and credibility of the
nuclear weapons stockpile and delivery systems, and such
systems awaiting dismantlement on the date of the referenced
certification.
Section 1056--Prevention Of Asymmetry Of Nuclear Weapon Stockpile
Reductions
The section would require the President to certify whether
reductions in the United States nuclear weapons stockpile would
result in the stockpile being smaller than that of the Russian
Federation. The section would provide that if the President
certifies that the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile is smaller
than the Russian stockpile, he may not make any reductions to
the U.S. stockpile until the Commander of U.S. Strategic
Command reports on a potential strategic imbalance created by
the reductions, and a period of 180 days has elapsed following
the submission of the report to the congressional defense
committees. The section would except from the limitation
reductions made to ensure the safety, security, reliability and
credibility of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Section 1057--Consideration Of Expansion Of Nuclear Forces Of Other
Countries
The section would provide that in any year in which the
President recommends any reductions in the nuclear forces of
the United States, no funds made available for fiscal year 2012
or any fiscal year thereafter may be used for such reduction
until the President transmits to the appropriate congressional
committees a report regarding foreign nuclear weapons programs
and a certification by the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command
as to whether the recommended reductions in U.S. nuclear forces
could have specific implications for U.S. national security.
Section 1058--Chemistry And Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear
Facility And Uranium Processing Facility
The section would require an annual certification by the
President whether the construction of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) and
the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) will be completed not
later than 2021 and whether both facilities will be fully
operational by not later than 2024. The section would further
require that if the President is not able to so certify, then
no funds made available for fiscal year 2012 or any year
thereafter may be available to reduce the nondeployed nuclear
warheads of the United States until 120 days after the
President is able to make the certification. The section would
include an exception for reductions necessary to ensure the
safety, security, reliability and credibility of the nuclear
weapons stockpile.
Section 1059--Nuclear Warheads On Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Of The United States
The section states the sense of the Congress that strategic
stability is not enhanced by reducing the deployment of
multiple warheads on U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles
if other states are increasing the warhead loading of their
intercontinental ballistic missiles. The section would also
limit the reductions in warhead loading on U.S.
intercontinental ballistic missiles unless the President
certifies that the Russian Federation and the People's Republic
of China are carrying out similar reductions. The section
includes an exception for reductions made to ensure the safety,
security, reliability and credibility of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile and delivery systems.
Section 1060--Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Extended
Deterrence Policy
The section would state the policy of the United States
regarding nonstrategic nuclear weapons reductions as well as
the United States policy on the extended deterrence commitment
to Europe. The section would also limit any funds made
available for fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year thereafter to
reduce, consolidate or withdraw U.S. nuclear weapons that are
based in Europe until certain specific conditions are met, as
established by a certification from the President submitted to
the appropriate congressional committees, and a period of 180
days has elapsed.
Section 1061--Improvements to Nuclear Weapons Council
The section would amend the charter of the Nuclear Weapons
Council to enable the Department of Defense to have greater
insight into and control of the budget of the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
Section 1062--Interagency Council on the Strategic Capability of the
National Laboratories
This section would establish an Interagency Council on the
Strategic Capability of the National Laboratories. The
membership of the council would include the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, and other officials as
designated by the President. The council would be responsible
for a variety of matters related to identifying, assessing, and
ensuring adequate support for strategic capabilities at the
national laboratories that could be used by the participating
agencies to accomplish national security missions. This section
would also require each member of the council to create
streamlined consideration and approval processes for their
agency to procure the services of the national laboratories on
appropriate matters. Finally, this section would require the
council to submit a report to appropriate congressional
committees on the functions and effectiveness of the council.
In June 2010, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of
National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
the Secretary of Defense signed a ``Governance Charter for an
Interagency Council on the Strategic Capability of DOE National
Laboratories as National Security Assets.'' The committee
supports the intent of this charter, and recommends this
provision to codify the Council and provide congressional
direction regarding its functions. Elsewhere in this report,
the committee discusses the Work For Others program at the
Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Section 1063--Report on Capability of Conventional and Nuclear Forces
Against Certain Tunnel Sites
This section would require the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command to prepare a report for the congressional defense
committees within 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act on the implications of the underground tunneling
network of the People's Republic of China for the capacity of
the conventional and nuclear forces of the United States to
hold those tunnels (and assets contained within) at risk,
including any implications for U.S. force structure and
requirements. Such report would be provided to the
congressional defense committees in an unclassified report,
with a classified annex if necessary.
The committee also directs the Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command to prepare a classified update of a report on the known
hardened and deeply buried sites of foreign nations, as well as
an assessment of the ability of the United States to neutralize
such sites with conventional and or nuclear forces.
Section 1064--Report on Conventional and Nuclear Forces in the Western
Pacific Region
The section would state the sense of the Congress regarding
U.S. conventional and nuclear forces in the Western Pacific as
a response to North Korean aggression. The section would
require a report related to deploying additional conventional
and nuclear forces to the Western Pacific, and specific issues
with such deployments including an evaluation of any bilateral
agreements, basing arrangements and costs of such deployments.
Section 1065--Sense of Congress on Nuclear Arsenal
This section would express a sense of Congress that the
nuclear force structure of the United States should be
periodically reexamined, through nuclear posture reviews, to
assess assumptions that shape the structure, size, and
targeting of U.S. nuclear forces and to ensure that such forces
are structured, sized, and targeted to be capable of holding at
risk the assets that potential adversaries value and to provide
robust extended deterrence and assurance to allies of the
United States.
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Section 1066--Assessment of Department of Defense Use of
Electromagnetic Spectrum
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the
Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives,
and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee of the
Senate, within 270 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act assessing the Department of Defense's use of
electromagnetic spectrum. Furthermore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to also submit this report to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration at
the time it is provided to the congressional committees.
The committee is concerned that discussions regarding
potential reallocation of electromagnetic spectrum bands have
not adequately accounted for the operational and cost impacts
on critical national security missions. The committee is also
concerned that the Department is not proactively planning in
order to be in the best possible position to respond should
reallocation decisions need to be made. The committee
recognizes that this type of planning is complex and requires
significant resources and personnel from other mission areas to
transition systems and processes, as well as adequate time to
do this in a methodical, efficient, coordinated, and cost-
effective manner. Therefore, in conducting the assessment, the
committee encourages the Secretary to focus on the impact of
the 1755-1850 MHz spectrum band, in particular the 1755-1780
MHz band, with regards to cost, the time needed for transition,
and required comparable spectrum to relocate. The committee
also seeks information on technology development and
implementation that would affect spectrum relocation.
Section 1067--Electronic Warfare Strategy of the Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review and update Department of Defense guidance related to
electronic warfare not later than January 1, 2013, to ensure
that oversight roles and responsibilities within the Department
are clearly defined. This section would also require the
Commander, U.S. Strategic Command to update and issue guidance
regarding the responsibilities of the combatant command with
regard to joint electronic warfare capabilities. Finally, this
section would include additional reporting requirements in the
annual report on electronic warfare required by section 1053 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84).
Section 1068--Report on Counterproliferation Capabilities and
Limitations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2013, outlining operational capabilities, limitations,
and shortfalls within the Department of Defense with respect to
counterproliferation and combating weapons of mass destruction
involving special operations forces and key enabling forces.
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1071--Rule of Construction Relating To Prohibition on
Infringing on the Individual Right to Lawfully Acquire, Possess, Own,
Carry, and Otherwise Use Privately Owned Firearms, Ammunition, and
Other Weapons
This section would amend section 1062(c) of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383), relating to the rule of construction regarding
the prohibition on collecting or recording information
regarding the lawful ownership of a privately owned firearm or
other weapon by a member of the Armed Forces or a Department of
Defense civilian employee, to clarify that a military mental
health professional or commanding officer may inquire if a
member of the Armed Services owns any weapons, if such member
is at high risk for suicide or causing harm to others.
Section 1072--Expansion of Authority of the Secretary of The Army To
Loan or Donate Excess Small Arms for Funeral and Other Ceremonial
Purposes
This section would amend section 4683(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to change the statutory limitation on the
number of excess small arms that the Secretary of the Army can
donate to certain eligible organizations for funeral and other
ceremonial purposes. This section would also establish a
rotational small arms loan program should the demand for
ceremonial small arms exceed currently available excess supply.
Section 1073--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for Manufacturing Beyond
Low-Rate Initial Production at Certain Prototype Integration Facilities
This section would change current restrictions on prototype
manufacturing activities from ``low-rate initial production''
to ``low-rate initial production or 1,000 units, whichever is
greater,'' at prototype integration facilities within certain
components of the Army's Research, Development, and Engineering
Command.
Section 1074--Interagency Collaboration on Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This provision would add a finding to section 1036 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417). This provision would also
direct the Secretary of Defense to collaborate with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration on research to seek solutions to challenges
associated with the safe integration of unmanned aircraft
systems in the National Airspace System.
Section 1075--Authority to Transfer Surplus Mine-Resistant Ambush-
Protected Vehicles and Spare Parts
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer surplus Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles,
including spare parts for such vehicles, to non-profit United
States humanitarian demining organizations for purposes of
demining activities and training of such organization. This
section would specify that any transfer of such a vehicle shall
be made on a loan basis; require the cost of operation and
maintenance of the vehicles to be borne by the recipient
organization; and include any other appropriate conditions as
determined by the Secretary. This section would require the
Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees in
writing 60 days prior to making any transfer of vehicles or
spare parts.
Section 1076--Limitation On Availability of Funds for Retirement of
Aircraft
This section would prohibit any fiscal year 2013 funds from
being used to retire, divest or transfer any aircraft of the
Air Force and C-23 Sherpa aircraft of the Army. This section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2013, a report by
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Chiefs of Staff of
the Air Force, and the Army that specifies the rationale,
criteria, and costs associated with the proposed retirement,
divestment, or transfer of the aforementioned aircraft during
fiscal years 2013 through 2017. This section would also require
the Comptroller General to submit to the congressional defense
committees a review of the Secretary's report no later than 90
days after the Secretary's submission of the report to the
congressional defense committees. This section would also make
various transfers of funding among accounts within this Act in
order to provide sufficient funding for aircraft that are
proposed for retirement, divestment or transfer in fiscal year
2013.
Section 1077--Prohibition on Department of Defense Use of Nondisclosure
Agreements to Prevent Members of the Armed Forces and Civilian
Employees of the Department from Communicating with Members of Congress
This section would modify section 1034(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to prohibit any person from restricting a
civilian employee of the Department of Defense from
communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector
General. This section would further amend section 1034(a) of
title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the prohibition
on restricting communication of a member of the Armed Forces or
civilian employee of the Department of Defense also precludes
the use of a nondisclosure agreement to restrict communication,
but does not prevent the use of nondisclosure agreements to
prevent the disclosure of deliberations regarding base
realignment and closure, commercial proprietary information,
and the inappropriate release of classified information.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Section 1081--Bipartisan Independent Strategic Review Panel
This section would establish a bipartisan independent
strategic review panel to conduct a regular review of the
national defense strategic environment of the United States and
to conduct an independent assessment of the quadrennial defense
review required under section 118 of title 10, United States
Code.
The committee notes that the final report of the
Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, established by
section 1061 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), found that there was
insufficient top down guidance on priorities, roles, and
missions to allow the Department of Defense to effectively plan
its missions, structure, or resources, or to develop
integration and coordination with other departments and
agencies. The report recommended the establishment of an
independent strategic review panel to review the national
security strategic environment of the next 20 years and provide
prioritized goal and risk assessment guidance for use by the
U.S. Government. The committee intends this section to be an
incremental step in adopting this recommendation. In addition,
the committee notes that section 1071 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) established an enduring requirement for an
independent panel to assess the report of the Quadrennial
Defense Review. Therefore, the committee has consolidated the
duties of these two panels into a single panel for the purposes
of greater efficiency and information sharing.
Section 1082--Notification of Delayed Reports
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by
inserting a new section 122a, which would require the Secretary
of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees if
the Secretary determines that a report required by law to be
submitted by an official of the Department of Defense to
Congress will not be submitted by the date required.
Section 1083--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System
The committee notes that in 2011, the Secretary of Defense
returned all defense intelligence employees in the Defense
Civilian Intelligence Personnel System pay bands to the
original grade structure, with the exception of the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by September 30, 2012, on the status of the transition
back to a grade structure. The briefing should include the
impact on retention and recruiting as a result of the change,
including information on pay banding impacts on retention and
recruiting, incentives and authorities available to retain
critical skill sets, and information on the process by which
employees have the ability to appeal reviews and compensation
within the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System.
Guidance Regarding the Conversion of Performance of Certain Functions
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
issuing guidance in December 2011 entitled ``Prohibition on
Converting Certain Functions to Contract Performance.'' As the
Department noted, during downsizing, ``We must be particularly
vigilant to prevent the inappropriate conversion of work to
contract performance.'' The committee directs the Department to
clarify that this guidance applies as well to functions
performed by Non-Appropriated Fund employees, which is
consistent with section 2461 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee also commends the Department for the issuance of
``Guidance Related to the Utilization of Military Manpower to
Perform Certain Functions'' so that ``tasks that are not
military essential in nature must be designated for government
civilian personnel, or contractor performance, where
appropriate.''
National Security Education Program
The committee recognizes the importance of the National
Security Education Program and the value it provides to enhance
national security by educating future government leaders in
language and cultural studies. The committee notes the
decreased funding in fiscal year 2013 and encourages the
Department of Defense to consider the importance of this
program when developing future year budget requests.
Pay Parity for Department of Defense Federal Wage System Employees
Employed at Joint Military Institutions
The committee continues to be concerned about pay parity
for Department of Defense employees at joint bases and is
disappointed that it has not yet received the briefing it
directed the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to
provide in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
regarding the actions being taken to address the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC) recommendations. In
October 2010, the FPRAC recommended consolidation of the
Federal Wage System area within the same General Schedule
locality pay area; however, no further action has been taken.
As previously noted, an example of pay disparity is Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, where the former McGuire Air
Force Base, New Jersey, and Fort Dix, New Jersey, are in the
Philadelphia cost of living area, and the former Lakehurst NAES
is in the New York cost of living area. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to provide
the briefing directed by the committee in H. Rept. 112-78 to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services by June 30, 2012. The briefing should include
actions being taken to correct the disparities between General
Schedule and Federal Wage System employees employed at joint
military installations.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Section 1101--Expansion of Personnel Management Authority Under
Experimental Program With Respect to Certain Scientific and Technical
Positions
This section would amend subsection (b)(1) of section 1101
of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) in subparagraph (A), by
striking `40' and inserting `60'.
The committee is aware of the specialized personnel hiring
needs of organizations requiring a competent, highly technical
workforce, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA). In the conference report accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (House
Report 112-329), the conferees expressed concern that DARPA did
not have a solid analytical basis for its request. In numerous
discussions with DARPA, the committee has received more
rigorous justification supporting the need for the increase in
hiring billets for this experimental personnel program, and
therefore supports the rationale for an increase. The committee
cautions DARPA to make judicious use of this authority, along
with more effective use of other hiring authorities, in order
to prevent additional requests for incremental increases in
billets for this authority.
Section 1102--Authority to Pay for the Transport of Family Household
Pets for Federal Employees During Certain Evacuation Operations
This section would amend section 5725 of title 5, United
States Code, to add an eligibility for Government-provided or
reimbursed shipment of household pets of civilian employees
during evacuations from permanent stations in foreign
locations. The shipment of pets of Department of Defense (DOD)
civilian personnel would be subject to the same DOD rules as
those applied to the shipment of pets of members of the
military.
Section 1103--Extension of Authority To Fill Shortage Category
Positions for Certain Federal Acquisition Positions for Civilian
Agencies
This section would extend until September 30, 2017, direct-
hire authority to appoint candidates to certain Federal
acquisition positions where there is either a severe shortage
of candidates or a critical hiring need. The committee
recognizes that acquisition is a critical area that suffered
from years of downsizing leading to a lack of capacity and
oversight of requirements.
Section 1104--One-Year 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 1 additional year, 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 1105--Policy on Senior Mentors
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide written notice to the congressional defense committees
60 days in advance of a change to the Department of Defense
policy on senior mentors, which was initially issued by the
Secretary of Defense on April 1, 2010.
Subtitle B--Interagency Personnel Rotations
Section 1111--Interagency Personnel Rotations
This section would direct the establishment of a Committee
on National Security Personnel that will manage the interagency
personnel rotation among national security positions across the
executive branch, except for the intelligence community.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to conduct oversight on ongoing
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the larger
war on terrorism, and the increasingly uncertain global
security environment. In particular, the committee focuses on
three core areas in this title directly connected to current
U.S. national security interests and emerging threats facing
our country. First, the committee resources the mission to
disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, while concurrently authorizing resources for and
providing oversight of the transition to Afghan security forces
lead for maintaining security. Second, the committee
strengthens its oversight of security force assistance and
military-to-military interactions throughout the world,
including authorizing resources to combat transnational
terrorism. Third, the committee worked to enhance its oversight
of, and the resourcing of, efforts to deal with emergent and
evolving threats around the world, including the nuclear
ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The committee applauds the success of the United States
military in its global pursuit of Al Qaeda, including the
demise of Osama bin Laden. The committee remains concerned that
Al Qaeda and associated forces continue to threaten the United
States and seek to expand their influence throughout the world.
The committee supports expanding the capacity of the United
States military to combat these transnational threats to our
country. To this end, the committee seeks to ensure the
capability of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is
marginalized, particularly the Haqqani Network which has been
the most important Afghanistan-based protector of Al Qaeda.
Therefore, the committee continues to resource key programs
that will help to further consolidate gains in Afghanistan,
including the Commanders' Emergency Response Program,
reintegration activities in Afghanistan, support to coalition
forces, and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund. Additionally,
the committee further strengthens its oversight of the campaign
plan in Afghanistan by authorizing the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide updates on the United States'
plans in Afghanistan beyond 2014. However, in light of these
same objectives, the committee is concerned about recent
memoranda of understanding that were signed as a prelude to the
Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Afghan government and
forthcoming negotiations on a bilateral security agreement. The
committee believes the United States must maintain its
capability to conduct operations in Afghanistan that are
aligned with our vital national security interests and ensure
that all necessary protections are afforded U.S. forces.
The committee encourages the United States and the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan to continue to negotiate in good faith to
improve their partnership, which is important to both
countries. The committee encourages the Government of Pakistan
to reconsider its closure of the supply routes through Pakistan
into Afghanistan, and recommends strict controls of assistance
and reimbursement to Pakistan until such time as the supply
routes are open and the Secretary of Defense can certify that
Pakistan is cooperating in certain key areas. In addition, the
committee notes that significant funding previously authorized
to be appropriated in support of cooperation with Pakistan
remain unexpended, as a result of closures of Pakistan's supply
routes. Therefore, the committee has reduced its authorization
of appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for these activities,
without prejudice regarding the importance of such activities.
The committee also has taken several steps to resource key
security assistance programs and activities which are critical
to addressing other security challenges. The committee remains
committed to supporting the Global Security Contingency Fund
(GSCF), but encourages the Department of Defense, in
coordination with the Department of State, to establish GSCF
with all deliberate haste and to be flexible and adaptive in
responding to emerging circumstances which may threaten U.S.
national security interests. The committee does not support, at
this time, the extension of temporary authorities that could be
covered by the GSCF and believes the GSCF must be founded and
aligned with the central purpose and intent as outlined in
section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81).
As previously noted, the committee continues to strengthen
its oversight of security force assistance programs and
military-to-military interactions. However, the committee is
concerned that these programs may foster contradictory
incentive structures that are implicit to, and can emerge from,
funding the training and operations of security forces of
foreign nations with the intent of combating against a threat
to our national security interests. Often these programs do not
properly control for these diverging incentive structures.
Therefore, the committee directed the Comptroller General to
conduct an in-depth assessment regarding how to control for
these incentive structures.
The committee also seeks ways to support the efforts of the
Department of Defense to prepare and position itself in
preparation for new and emerging threats. Iran continues to
defy the international community and appears to be committed to
developing nuclear weapons. The committee believes the
development of such weapons would destabilize the region as
well as threaten U.S. national security interests. Thus, the
committee includes a specific declaration of policy with regard
to Iran's nuclear weapons program, requirements to enhance the
credibility of the U.S. military deterrent against such a
program, and directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an
annex to a report on the military power of Iran in which the
Commander of the U.S. Central Command provides a comprehensive
review of the command's intelligence, capability, capacity or
authority gaps with respect to Iran's ability to threaten U.S.
forces or U.S. interests in the region.
Finally, the committee has taken steps to ensure that the
United States military is well positioned to address challenges
in the Asia-Pacific region. The President's new defense
strategic guidance envisions a rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific.
The committee agrees with the importance of the region, but
seeks to ensure that the military has sufficient capability and
capacity to effectively operate in the region. Consequently, in
this title the committee seeks to enhance reporting on the
cyber and space capabilities of the People's Liberation Army of
the People's Republic of China. The committee also includes
provisions regarding the assessment of the Commander of the
U.S. Pacific Command on the command's gaps in intelligence,
capability, capacity and authority, with regard to the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic
of China. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
build and strengthen its military relationships with regional
allies and partners in order to cooperatively meet regional
security challenges. These assessments are critical to
facilitating the Department of Defense's ability to
appropriately shift its resources and capabilities to the Asia-
Pacific region.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accountability and Stewardship of Department of Defense Reconstruction
Activities in Afghanistan
The committee supports the International Security and
Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, but encourages the Department of Defense to
maximize its stewardship of Department of Defense appropriated
funds that are being disbursed in support of ISAF efforts. The
committee believes that it is critical to analyze the
stewardship of these funds and capture the lessons learned
associated with Department of Defense funded reconstruction.
As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an analysis on the extent to which corruption within
Afghanistan has diverted Department of Defense financial
assistance from its intended purpose, and the accountability
measures in place to maximize the stewardship of Department of
Defense financial assistance in Afghanistan. The committee
further directs the Secretary to provide a briefing on the
results of such analysis to the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 31, 2012. The briefing, at a minimum,
should include: a summary of Department of Defense
reconstruction projects in Afghanistan between 2001-12; a
quantitative analysis of the corruption associated with such
projects in Afghanistan; a framework for accountability
measures that the Department of Defense utilizes to control for
the effects of corruption in reconstruction projects in
Afghanistan; and a summary of lessons learned in the
distribution of monies for Department of Defense reconstruction
projects in Afghanistan.
Afghan National Security Forces
The committee applauds the efforts of the International
Security Assistance Force to build the Afghan National Security
Forces (ANSF). The Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan
National Police (ANP) have matured beyond their nascent stages
and now possess many of the fundamental capabilities necessary
to conduct their mission sets. The next steps in their
organizational maturation include the further
professionalization of these entities. More specifically, the
committee believes the Department of Defense should continue to
build out the noncommissioned officer corps within the ANA and
transition the ANP from paramilitary activities toward
traditional policing missions in order for the ANP to more
effectively secure population centers. However, the committee
notes that these efforts, focused on operations and
organization, should not be executed at the expense of the
professionalization of core functions, such as building out the
administrative, equipping, and logistics support capacity of
the ANSF, which are critical to the long-term sustainability of
the ANSF. Additionally, the committee recommends integrating
more active duty police officers into the ANP training and
mentoring programs in order to provide role models for members
of the ANP and to ensure that the most up-to-date law
enforcement expertise and techniques are employed. While the
ANP benefits from classroom instruction from retired law
enforcement officers, it is essential that the ANP receive peer
mentoring and hands-on partnering with current law enforcement
practitioners in their day to day operations. The committee
encourages greater coordination between the ANSF at the
district level, in the form of operational coordination
centers, to improve responsiveness and command and control. The
committee further recommends an additional focus towards
literacy programs at the district levels. These literacy
programs will complement the professionalization and growth
path of the ANSF.
The committee expresses concern regarding the development
and effectiveness of the Afghan border police. These forces are
not fully arrayed along the critical border areas where
contraband, drugs, weapons, and improvised explosive device
materials move in and out of Afghanistan. The committee
believes that professionalizing the regulation of official
ports of entry is not only essential for security, but to
expand the tax base in support of Afghanistan's economy. The
Department of Defense should maintain a focus on the border
security forces or consider the feasibility of transferring
their mission to the ANA.
More broadly, the effort to build and further
professionalize the ANSF is a vital to the United States'
efforts in Afghanistan. The committee remains concerned over
the Afghan National Security Forces' susceptibility to
corruption. These forces must have the confidence of the Afghan
people and be able to continue to assume the lead in critical
security operations across the country, as they have been, so
that they can maintain the hard-won gains of the coalition and
secure the Afghan population from criminal elements, the
Taliban, and Al Qaeda.
Bilateral Security Agreement with Afghanistan
The committee is aware that after the completion of the
Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States and
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the United States and
Afghanistan will likely begin negotiating a bilateral security
agreement to replace the 2003 Status of Forces Agreement and to
govern an enduring U.S. military presence post-2014. While the
committee strongly endorses such an agreement between the
United States and Afghanistan, the committee notes that it must
be carefully constructed if it is to further the United States
national security interests. The committee believes that any
future bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan must be
informed by the core U.S. interest, to ``disrupt, dismantle,
and eventually defeat Al Qaeda, and to prevent its return to
either Afghanistan or Pakistan,'' as articulated by the
President at West Point in 2009. To ensure that this goal is
achieved, the committee believes that any future bilateral
security agreement between the United States and Afghanistan
must include the ability to carry out missions against Al
Qaeda, and associated forces, in concert with Afghan forces or
unilaterally. An agreement should also allow U.S. forces access
to sufficient bases to allow for such counterterrorism missions
and to permit U.S. forces to further assist the Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF) through training and assistance, as it
is the ANSF that will ultimately be required to secure
Afghanistan and prevent terrorist safe havens in Afghanistan in
the future. The committee further believes that the agreement
should preserve the exclusive jurisdiction of United States
authorities for the prosecution of offenses in Afghanistan by
United States military personnel. Finally, the committee
believes that an agreement should explicitly note the absolute
right of U.S. personnel to defend themselves and should clearly
permit U.S. forces and authorities to take such measures as
they deem necessary to provide for their self-defense.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take
careful note of the committee's expressed position on a new
bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan and further
expects the Secretary of Defense to keep the committee informed
about the progress of negotiations on such an agreement.
Challenges with Military-to-Military and Security Force Assistance
Efforts
The committee notes the significant improvements that have
resulted from U.S. investments in the capacity of partner
nations to conduct counter-terrorism, stability, counter-
narcotics, and related operations. The committee further notes
the report, ``Utilization of Certain Global Partnership
Authorities'' was submitted to the committee as required by
section 1237 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
While this report was useful in providing a detailed summary of
the processes associated with building global partnership
programs and an assessment of the impact of these programs, the
report did not specifically assess and provide recommendations
to control for potential moral hazard issues associated with
these types of efforts.
The committee notes that partnership building activities
are instrumental to the ability of the United States military
to defend the homeland and to conserve its fiscal resources.
Nevertheless, as the investment in these programs have
increased, the committee endeavors to ensure that the
Department of Defense fully addresses the challenges to
military-to-military and security-related assistance. Among
these challenges is the potential of creating negative
incentive structures for nations seeking such assistance, which
may adversely affect their internal political environment. In
particular, the committee seeks to ensure these activities are
not causing certain parties, who become insulated from risk, to
behave differently from how they would behave if they were
fully exposed to the risk.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by November 30, 2012, on the procedures the Department
of Defense has in place to control for the challenges inherent
to the provision of assistance and associated efforts to
foreign partners. The Comptroller General may focus on a sample
of such Department of Defense programs and may satisfy this by
leveraging work already conducted or underway. The briefing
should outline the extent to which the Department of Defense,
either alone or in conjunction with other agencies, considers
and evaluates the potential for perverse incentive structures
and negative unintended consequences due to moral hazard issues
or similar factors.
Commendation for Operation Unified Protector
The committee notes that the execution of Operation Unified
Protector led to the ousting of Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-
Gaddafi, former leader of Libya. While the committee celebrates
the ousting of Gaddafi, it expresses concern that this multi-
lateral operation, which was conducted in conjunction with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was not able to be
initiated, executed, or sustained without robust operational
and logistical support from the United States. The President
and the Secretary of Defense must consider, when they may join
future operations with NATO, that these operations will
continue to require a significant resource contribution from
the United States; therefore, the mission should possess a
vital U.S. national security interest. Moreover, the committee
remains concerned for the democratic transition and future in
Libya.
Competitive Strategies Study
The committee recommends that the Department of Defense
further develop its policies for deterring aggression through
closer examination of military strategies and capabilities that
impose disproportionate costs on adversaries seeking to defend
against them. The Department of Defense's ``Sustaining U.S.
Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense''
(hereafter Defense Strategic Guidance, or DSG) noted that
``Credible deterrence results from both the capabilities to
deny an aggressor the prospect of achieving his objectives and
from the complementary capability to impose unacceptable costs
on the aggressor.'' The committee recognizes that such cost-
imposing deterrence strategies are already being implemented by
potential adversaries of the United States. The DSG noted that
China and Iran are examples of states that are pursuing
``asymmetric means to counter [U.S.] power projection
capabilities,'' which include missiles and mines that are far
less expensive than the countermeasures the U.S. military would
have to deploy in response. Under conditions of fiscal
austerity, the U.S. military may not always be able to invest
in the level of force structure or range of capabilities
necessary to overcome all adversary capabilities. Instead, the
U.S. military would have to respond to initiatives undertaken
by potential adversaries more efficiently by investing in
discrete capabilities that hold at risk interests of particular
value to a given adversary, forcing the adversary to expend
substantially more resources in defending that particular
interest.
The committee directs the Director of the Office of Net
Assessment to conduct a study to identify cost imposing/
competitive strategies focused on countering potential
challenges posed by foreign nations. The study shall be
submitted within 365 days of the enactment of the Act to the
Committee on the Armed Services of the House. The study's
findings and recommendations shall be submitted in an
unclassified report, with a classified annex if necessary. The
report study should include the following:
(1) an identification and analysis of potential cost-
imposing strategies focused on at least two potential
adversaries known to be developing anti-access and
area-denial capabilities, based on a thorough
assessment of the potential adversaries' particular
strategic culture and military vulnerabilities;
(2) an assessment of the congruence of such
strategies with the current defense strategy and
defense program of record;
(3) the implications of pursuing such strategies for
the U.S. defense posture, to include capabilities,
force posture, and the role of allies and partners; and
(4) recommendations for defense investments by the
Department of Defense and the defense industrial base,
including, but not limited to, investments in
personnel, technologies, equipment, and training that
would be consistent with the objectives of one or more
feasible cost-imposing strategies.
Comptroller General Review of Use of General Purpose Forces and Special
Operations Forces for Security Force Assistance
The committee understands that, in the past few years, the
Department of Defense has emphasized security force assistance
which encompasses efforts to build the capacity and capability
of partner nation security forces. Historically, special
operations forces have conducted the majority of the
Department's activities to train, advise, and assist partner
nation security forces. However, in anticipation of its growing
importance, the Department has identified the need to
strengthen the capabilities of its general purpose forces to
conduct security force assistance. In the budget request for
fiscal year 2013, the Department noted that with the drawdown
of forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, more
opportunities will be available for special operations forces
to conduct advising and training of partner nation security
forces, and requested additional resources for U.S. Special
Operations Forces. At the same time, the Department has taken
steps to identify capability requirements, implement new
approaches to organizing units, and adjust training to enhance
the ability of general purpose forces to conduct security force
assistance.
The committee is aware of the Government Accountability
Office's previous work on challenges the Department faces in
defining its concept for security force assistance and guiding
combatant command and military service efforts to plan for,
prepare and conduct related activities, as well as its work on
challenges U.S. Special Operations Command has faced in
providing sufficient numbers of trained personnel to meet the
demand for increased deployments. Given the Department's plans
to continue to rely on special operations forces, as well as
its efforts to expand the capabilities of the general purpose
forces to perform security force assistance at a time when the
overall size of the force is constrained, the committee
believes that the roles and responsibilities of both of these
forces, with regard to security force assistance, needs to be
clearly drawn and understood to avoid confusion and
duplication. In order to better understand the Department's
vision for the security force assistance mission within both
forces, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to submit a report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that
evaluates the Department of Defense's efforts in this area,
including: the extent to which the Department has delineated
the roles and responsibilities of general purpose and special
operations forces; distinguished between the types of
situations or environments where the respective types of forces
would be used to conduct security force assistance activities;
and whether the Department has identified, synchronized, and
prioritized the respective requirements and resource needs for
building the capabilities of both types of forces.
Concerns About Supporting Data on Impact and Sustainability of
Authorities Relating to Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign
Military Forces
The committee remains concerned about the lack of data
regarding the impact and sustainability of projects undertaken
pursuant to the global train and equip authority included in
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), commonly referred to as
``1206'' funding. For example, the committee believes there
remains little insight into whether the basic objectives of
section 1206 have been met, including whether a recipient
nation has undertaken counterterrorism (CT) operations
autonomously or successfully mitigated an acute or emerging CT
threat. The committee acknowledges that the combatant
commanders reiterate annually in testimony before the committee
that capacity building is a top priority, but the committee has
yet to be presented with substantive validation of the impact
of 1206 programs on recipient nations' CT capabilities.
Further, the committee has not received any data regarding
recipient nations' readiness to sustain 1206 programs. The
committee reiterates that the 1206 program is not intended as a
military-to-military engagement tool, but rather as a capacity
building tool, and the committee requires validation that
capacity building efforts in proposed countries are working.
Seven years after the commencement of this program, the
committee believes such data should be available. The committee
also welcomes clarification on how the Department plans to
incorporate 1206 into the Global Security Contingency Fund
after fiscal year 2013.
The committee expects the Department of Defense and the
Department of State to continue to provide related information
to the congressional committees, including:
(1) a summary of 1206-funded equipment provided to a
country to date;
(2) a review of capabilities or exercises that a
country has conducted independently as a result of the
1206-funded equipment to date;
(3) a country's future plans with regard to the
equipment;
(4) a description of the extent to which a proposed
tranche of projects would complement the existing 1206
program; and
(5) a description of the recipient country's
sustainment plan for the 1206-provided equipment.
Counter Lord's Resistance Army and Related Operations
The committee notes the efforts of the Department of
Defense and U.S. Africa Command, consistent with the Lord's
Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-172), to assist the Ugandan People's
Defense Force as they combat the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)
and attempt to bring Joseph Kony to justice. The deployment of
approximately 100 United States special operations forces in
support of this mission is a step in addressing a two decade
reign of terror that has killed and brutalized thousands while
destabilizing the region. The committee notes that Congress has
provided the authority in section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to
support this effort and commends it to the attention of the
Secretary of Defense. However, the committee also cautions that
special operations forces should be employed judiciously and
within circumstances that fully leverage the unique skill sets
that these highly trained units possess, in keeping with
important U.S. national security interests.
The committee believes that stability in Africa is in the
United States' national interest. Supporting justice, human
rights, and poverty reduction, as well as facilitating access
of African goods and services to world markets, brings a
stability that stretches beyond just the local region and has a
positive impact upon the United States and our global partners.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Administration to
continue its interagency approach to stabilization efforts and
security sector reform programs across the region, including
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African
Republic, and South Sudan, among others. In so doing, the
Administration should consider using the authorities granted by
the Global Security Contingency Fund, which was crafted for
this sort of multi-faceted security challenge. The committee
notes that the Administration has used the Global Train and
Equip authority (i.e. ``1206'') for this purpose but cautions
that this was a special case use of that authority. Generally,
the intent of ``1206'' in the counter-terrorism role is to
combat terrorist organizations with a global reach and an
agenda that is directly hostile to the United States and our
partners. The LRA, while a heinous entity, does not necessarily
rise to that standard on its own.
Developments in Syria
The committee notes with grave concern that the conflict in
the Syrian Arab Republic has now entered its second year.
President Assad's crackdown has been ruthless, including
flagrant human rights violations; extrajudicial killings; use
of force against noncombatant civilians, including children;
and interference with the provision of medical aid and
humanitarian assistance. Although a tenuous ceasefire has been
put in place, instances of violence continue. The committee is
concerned that the situation remains both uncertain and dire.
The committee is also concerned about the implications for
regional conflict. Assad-backed military units have shot across
the border into Syrian refugee camps located in the Republic of
Turkey, killing five individuals. Violence has spilled into the
Lebanese Republic. The Republic of Iraq, governed by a Shi'a
coalition, may consider the prospect of a Sunni-controlled
government succeeding the Assad regime on its western border or
alliances forming between Syria's Sunni opposition and Iraq's
own Sunni population as contrary to Iraq's strategic interests.
Moreover, the committee believes that the situation in Syria
could present a strategic opportunity to deal a blow to known
supporters of terrorism in the region, as the Islamic Republic
of Iran continues to back the Assad government, and groups such
as Hezbollah have enjoyed support and residence in Syria.
The President has stated that the violence in Syria must
end and that Assad must go. However, the committee is concerned
that the means available to achieve such goal may be
insufficient. The committee notes that much remains unknown
about the opposition and that Syria maintains robust air
defenses that limit military options. Given these factors and
the significant budget constraints facing the military, the
committee acknowledges that United States military intervention
is not a viable option at this time. The committee further
believes such a decision should only be taken in the event U.S.
vital national security interests are at stake. In the interim,
the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct robust planning to
provide the Commander in Chief an array of options, should such
U.S. interests be threatened.
European Union Support for Arms Embargo on the People's Republic of
China
Maintaining the arms embargo against the People's Republic
of China, which entered force in 1989 following the Tiananmen
Square protests, is a national security interest of the United
States. The committee expects that our European Union allies
will continue to support this arms embargo.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, provide a briefing to
the Senate Committee on the Armed Services, the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Armed
Services, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the
current position of each European Union member state on
maintaining the current European Union arms embargo against the
People's Republic of China.
Funding Source for the Authority for Support of Special Operations to
Combat Terrorism
The committee has supported the judicial and prudent use of
the Authority for Support of Special Operations to Combat
Terrorism, known as ``1208'' authority, from section 1208 of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375). The committee is aware
that this authority has been critical in providing support to
foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals
engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military
operations by U.S. Special Operations Forces to combat
terrorism. The committee notes that since its inception,
funding for this authority has been taken from base budget
funds for operation and maintenance rather than from a distinct
funding line within Major Force Program 11 (MFP-11) up to the
present authorized level of $50.0 million per year.
Considering the future of the authority and the need to
provide program consistency and agility, the committee directs
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low Intensity Conflict, in coordination with the Commander,
U.S. Special Operations Command, to provide a report to the
House Committee on Armed Services within 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, that analyzes the feasibility of
creating a distinct MFP-11 funding line in the budget to
support ``1208'' activities rather than using base budget funds
made available for operations and maintenance. The report may
be submitted in classified or unclassified formats, as
required.
Geographic Positioning of the Headquarters for U.S. Africa Command
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct an
analysis of the placement of the headquarters of the U.S.
Africa Command and report the findings to the congressional
defense committees by April 1, 2012. The committee was
disappointed that the report was not completed by that
deadline, but has granted the Secretary an extension through
July 1, 2012.
The committee continues to believe that the establishment
of U.S. Africa Command as a geographic combatant command was an
appropriate response to meet the national security challenges
originating in, and transiting through, the African region. The
committee also believes that the physical location of the
command's headquarters must balance operational requirements
with resource constraints to enable the command to function
both effectively and efficiently. Therefore, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct
a comprehensive analysis of options for the permanent placement
of the U.S. Africa Command headquarters and to provide a report
of the analysis to the congressional defense committees by
December 31, 2012. The study should consider locations both in
the United States and overseas, or a combination thereof.
Global Security Contingency Fund
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
submitted a legislative proposal for extending the authority in
1207(n) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), relating to the provision of
certain types of assistance to forces in Djibouti, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Somalia, and Yemen. However, the committee feels that
the authority provided by section 1207(b) is sufficient for
this purpose. The authority provided in 1207(n) was expressly
transitional, intended to cover the initial period required to
establish the organization and policies for the administration
of the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). The committee
believes that the time between the passage of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and the
expiration of the transitional authorities in Section 1207(n)
is sufficient to stand up the GSCF.
The committee will not favorably consider any new requests
for building partnership capacity authorities in a unique,
stand-alone provision at this time because (1) the GSCF was
designed to be flexible and responsive, (2) the committee
anticipates that adjustments may be required to the GSCF
authority in the very beginning of the pilot period, and (3)
the committee is concerned that the proliferation of similar,
overlapping and/or competing building partner capacity
authorities creates unnecessary confusion and friction.
Instead, any such request will be considered only in the
context of modifying the GSCF or other existing authorities as
appropriate. Moreover, committee staff has been briefed that
the current GSCF authorities are sufficient.
The committee is concerned that as the Department of State
and the Department of Defense establish the organizational
procedures to administer the GSCF, they will create
bureaucracies and processes that unnecessarily constrain an
authority that Congress designed to be flexible and responsive
to a range of security challenges. The committee notes that,
while the GSCF brings together a variety of authorities in a
new way, many of those authorities existed in previous forms
prior to the GSCF formation. As a result, there are existing
organizations and procedures to administer them. The committee
recognizes that, while these existing bureaucracies may not be
optimized for the administration of the GSCF, creative and
productive leadership within the Executive Branch will allow
the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to use them
to exercise the GSCF authority even as they finalize the
structure for its administration. The committee believes that
this will encourage the development of an organizational
process that is as agile and flexible as the GSCF authority was
designed to be. Since the GSCF is a pilot program, the
committee fully expects that there will be a refinement process
over its lifespan. It does not expect the administrative
process to be in final form before the end of fiscal year 2012,
nor in time for the presentation of the first proposed GSCF
activity. The committee expects the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense to begin exercising the authority in a
timely matter.
Ground Lines of Communication through Pakistan
The committee expresses grave concern about the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan's closure of the Ground Lines of
Communication (GLOC) through Pakistan, following the U.S.
operation that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in 2010, as
well as the cross-border incident between U.S. forces and the
Pakistani military in November 2011. The inability to utilize
the GLOC has hampered the United States' efforts in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and has forced the International
Security and Assistance Forces (ISAF) to rely extensively on
the Northern Distribution Network, which does not possess the
same capacity for through-put of supplies and equipment. The
closure of the GLOC has also significantly increased the cost
for supplying ISAF and poses challenges for retrograde of
equipment as U.S. forces redeploy from Afghanistan.
The committee expresses support for continued cooperation
with Pakistan as a critical element to successfully combat
global terrorism. The committee hopes that Pakistan will re-
open the GLOC and strongly urges their continued support of the
Pakistan-United States relationship moving forward.
Iranian Influence in Iraq
The committee is concerned about the malign influence of
the Islamic Republic of Iran within the Republic of Iraq. The
committee is aware that Iranian influence has undermined the
U.S. efforts in Iraq and further heightens sectarian tensions.
The committee understands that Iran projects its influence in
at least three ways: politically, socially, and through covert
support for militant groups. Iran's political influence is
directed primarily through former Iraqi exiles who lived and
worked in Iran during Saddam Hussein's rule and through senior
figures in the Iraqi government. Iran also is attempting to
influence Shiite religious institutions in Iraq. Moreover, the
committee expresses concern regarding Iran's support to major
militant networks in Iraq, including Asaib al-Haqq, the
Promised Day Brigades, and Kataib Hizballah which has, in
effect, operated as an arm of the Iranian Qods Force.
The committee believes that Iran's malign influence in Iraq
could potentially increase sectarian tensions in the region,
further the likelihood of regional conflict, and have the
overall effect of undermining U.S. policy goals in the region.
National Guard State Partnership Program
The committee supports the National Guard State Partnership
Program (SPP), which focuses on improving long-term
international stability through unique cooperative partnerships
between 53 U.S. states and territories and 61 foreign partner
countries. The committee applauds the SPP activities supporting
partner capacity building in a wide range of areas including
humanitarian assistance, emergency management, consequence
management, emergency communications, disaster relief, counter-
trafficking and counter-proliferation programs. In Section 1234
of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), the Comptroller General of the United
States was directed to submit a report assessing the program's
effectiveness, including its goals, objectives, activities, and
funding levels.
The committee is aware that the Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) preliminary findings have shown widespread
consensus among the combatant commands and embassy staffs that
the SPP provides considerable benefits, such as promoting
stability and security cooperation and assisting with building
partnership capabilities. Additionally, the program is
providing experience to participating guardsmen as well as a
mechanism for developing relationships between the state Guard
units and the partner countries. However, the committee is
concerned that the GAO's preliminary findings also indicate
that the SPP does not have clear and current program goals,
objectives, and performance metrics to measure progress or
allow a systematic assessment of the program's effectiveness.
In addition, the committee understands the GAO's preliminary
findings have found activity and cost data for SPP is
incomplete and there is limited understanding among many
program participants about implementing activities that include
civilians. The committee looks forward to receiving GAO's final
report and how the Department of Defense plans to address these
program concerns.
Rebalancing to Asia-Pacific Region
The committee recognizes the importance of the Asia-Pacific
region and agrees that the economic and security interests of
the United States are closely linked to developments in the arc
extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the
Indian Ocean region and South Asia. The committee also supports
the planned rotational presence of the U.S. Marines to northern
Australia and the deployment of additional U.S. Navy ships to
the region. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
to consult with the congressional defense committees on its
Pacific basing strategy in order to facilitate understanding of
the needs and requirements of the Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command and to support U.S. troops deployed in the region. The
committee requests a briefing from the Secretary of Defense
focusing on specific objectives of the strategy for the United
States and our regional allies, including an assessment of how
current and future U.S. military engagements, including
deployments, training, exercises, and other activities, may
meet regional strategic and theater campaign plan objectives.
Report on North Atlantic Treaty Organization Chicago Summit
The committee notes the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) will host its 25th summit in Chicago, Illinois, on May
20-21, 2012. The committee recognizes the sustained commitment
of NATO to mutual defense and regional stability and security.
The summit provides an important opportunity for follow-on
discussions from the 2010 Lisbon Summit regarding the future of
NATO, with a focus on the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
smart defense, missile defense, and the future force
composition of the alliance.
The committee recognizes the contribution of NATO, NATO-
aspirant nations, and non-NATO nations that have committed more
than 39,000 of the more than 129,000 troops deployed in
Afghanistan. NATO has been a key player in Afghanistan by
conducting operations against the insurgency and supporting the
growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National
Security Forces. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to continue working with NATO, NATO-aspirant nations,
and non-NATO nations to support ISAF operations and encourage
long-term bilateral cooperation between the military and
security forces of our partner nations and Afghanistan.
Further, the committee encourages the President to use the
summit as an opportunity to obtain multi-year commitments from
ISAF coalition nations to support the sustainment of the Afghan
National Security Forces post-2014.
The committee is aware of NATO's smart defense concept that
focuses on developing and maintaining military capabilities to
address current and future security problems. While in times of
austerity every dollar counts, the committee believes each
nation must also contribute its fair share. The committee is
concerned that few NATO nations are contributing the required 2
percent of its gross domestic product. The committee will
continue to follow the development of the smart defense concept
and the areas of multinational cooperation for smart defense
projects developed at and following the Chicago summit.
As part of the committee's continued oversight of the
summit's outcomes, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the
House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
by October 1, 2012, on how the Department of Defense may
support the summit's outcomes. The report should include a
description of how the U.S. military may support the
development and execution of the summit results, including
projected and current U.S. military deployments, training,
exercises, and other engagement activities.
Strategic Partnership with the Kingdom of Bahrain
The committee strongly supports the longstanding
partnership between the United States and the Kingdom of
Bahrain and notes that Naval Support Activity-Bahrain is a
valuable strategic asset for the United States and a key
component of continued mutually beneficial United States-
Bahrain strategic cooperation.
While reaffirming its commitment to the United States-
Bahrain partnership, the committee calls upon Bahrain to
continue to support protections of human rights and reduce
sectarian divisions in all facets of society.
The committee commends Bahrain for establishing the Bahrain
Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), which filed a report
on November 23, 2011, noting instances of excessive force
against protesters. The committee further commends Bahrain for
establishing a National Commission to implement the BICI's
recommendations to expand political rights and reduce sectarian
divisions in Bahrain.
The committee believes that peaceful resolution of domestic
political disputes and the implementation of meaningful
political reforms that uphold the rights of all Bahraini
citizens will facilitate further strengthening of the United
States-Bahrain strategic partnership.
Strengthening Asia-Pacific Partnerships
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
engage with our allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region
to build and strengthen regional security and stability. U.S.
economic and security interests are closely linked to the Asia-
Pacific region. Two of the four largest economies are in the
region, and about 40 percent of the world's trade passes
through the Strait of Malacca. Regional stability and open
trade lanes are crucial for the U.S. economy. Our allies and
partners have played an important role, alongside the United
States military, in maintaining peace for the past six decades.
The region's vast maritime domain, with strategic chokepoints,
numerous archipelagos, and the largest seas and oceans,
requires close working relationships with our five treaty
allies and many strategic partners. The committee encourages
the Department to continue strengthening its partnerships with
Asia-Pacific allies and partners to contribute to regional
security.
Study of Post Combat Role of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan
The committee notes that the United States military mission
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will evolve over the
next several years as the Afghan National Security Forces
(ANSF) increasingly take responsibility for providing security
in Afghanistan. Over that time, United States forces will draw
down significantly and eventually end their direct combat role,
and, as currently conceived by the Administration, limit their
role to training and equipping the ANSF and counterterrorism
missions after 2014. This transition could face substantial
challenges and will likely require intense planning to succeed.
The committee is aware that the Comptroller General has
undertaken several studies on aspects of this transition,
including the planning for the draw-down of U.S. forces and the
planning for the future of the ANSF, but believes that an
additional study of the planning for the post-2014 role of the
Department of Defense and U.S. military forces in Afghanistan
is appropriate.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to undertake a study of the nature and extent of
planning underway by the Department of Defense for the role of
the U.S. military and the Department in Afghanistan post 2014,
including progress in (1) developing a framework for making key
decisions such as assigning organizational responsibilities and
structures within the Department; (2) establishing a planning
approach to include identifying (a) key assumptions about the
environment in Afghanistan and roles of the Department, the
U.S. military, and contractors, (b) how the Department will
collaborate with other agencies, and (c) issues to be resolved
such as the level of support to be provided by the Department
to other agencies and disposition of U.S. equipment and assets;
(3) key decision points and related milestones for taking
actions to implement decisions, and (4) potential risks and
mitigation plans. The Comptroller General should periodically
brief the committee on the status of its work and provide a
final report no later than April 1, 2013.
Support for Security Cooperation Efforts Between the United States and
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
The committee expresses support for the U.S. Armed Forces
continued security cooperation efforts with the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan. To date, the nature and scope of the
military-to-military engagement between United States and the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has included developing
interoperability, augmenting self-defense capability, and
supporting their deployment capability. This security
cooperation enhances the overall security of both nations as
well as the region, and it should continue in its current form.
United States Military Capabilities in the Central Command Area of
Responsibility
The committee is aware of a number of reprogramming
requests submitted during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 by the
Department of Defense to the congressional defense committees
in support of joint urgent operational needs identified by the
Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to counter threats
from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The
committee has approved additional funding for these joint
urgent operational needs.
Moreover, the committee understands that additional
reprogramming requests will be submitted during fiscal year
2012 to address similar CENTCOM operational needs such as the
MK 38 Mod 2 machine gun system for Coastal Patrol Craft; the
Griffin missile for Coastal Patrol Craft; the Spike shoulder-
fired electro-optic weapon; digital rocket launchers; beyond-
line-of-sight command and control architecture; MAGIC VIEW;
hard and deeply buried target defeat systems; indications and
warning and systems performance enhancements; Scan Eagle; and
tactics development and evaluation. The committee supports
efforts to enhance the credibility of U.S. military
capabilities in the CENTCOM area of responsibility to deter
further aggression by Iran. Therefore, the committee expects to
consider such future reprogramming requests favorably.
The committee is also aware of additional investments
identified by CENTCOM to counter Iranian threats that are
included in the President's budget request for fiscal year
2013. Elsewhere in this bill, the committee authorizes funds
for fiscal year 2013 in support of these operational needs,
including underwater explosive ordnance disposal programs;
naval military intelligence program support equipment; the MK
38 Mod 2 machine gun system for Coastal Patrol Craft; the
Griffin missile for Coastal Patrol Craft; the Spike shoulder-
fired electro-optic weapon; unmanned aerial vehicle detection
and tracking; joint service explosive ordnance development;
advanced anti-radiation guided missiles; integrated, fixed
surveillance systems; and U.S. Cyber Command activities.
United States Participation in Headquarters Eurocorps
The committee is aware that Headquarters (HQ) Eurocorps was
established in 1992 to strengthen French-German military
cooperation, and that is has since grown to include other
European nations, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) members. Since its establishment, HQ Eurocorps has been
a ``deployable high readiness force headquarters'' in support
of European Union (EU) and NATO missions, including to Bosnia
and Herzogovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The committee
acknowledges that Spanish Chief of Defense, on behalf of HQ
Eurocorops, extended an invitation to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff on July 16, 2007, to provide permanent
contributions to the headquarters.
However, the committee is concerned that U.S. European
Command (USEUCOM) took over four years years to determine
congressional authorization was required to assign U.S.
military personnel permanently to the HQ Eurocorps staff
because HQ Eurocorps is not a part of the NATO force structure,
and to submit the proposed legislation to the congressional
defense committees. The committee questions why USEUCOM did not
designate a U.S. military liaison officer during the four years
to HQ Eurocorps to gain insight into HQ Eurocorps and to
examine the need, scope and value of U.S. Armed Forces
personnel working as a part of the HQ Eurocorps staff. The
committee is also concerned that the Commander of USEUCOM chose
to withdraw seven billets from four NATO Rapid Deployable Corps
in 2009 before congressional authorization was sought for U.S.
participation in HQ Eurocorps. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Commander of USEUCOM to assign a U.S. military
liaison officer to gain insight into HQ Eurocorps and determine
the potential necessity, scope and value of U.S. Armed Forces
personnel that might be permanently assigned to the HQ
Eurocorps staff.
United States Military Relationship with People's Republic of China
The committee recognizes the importance of military-to-
military contacts between the United States and the People's
Republic of China in the broader policy to advance U.S.
security interests. The committee is concerned about the lack
of Chinese transparency in the U.S.-China military
relationship. The committee requests a briefing from the
Secretary of Defense on military-to-military relations with
China and how they may best support the national security
objectives of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. The
briefing should also include an analysis of historical costs,
including monetary costs, and benefits associated with
supporting military-to-military relations with China.
The committee is also aware that the People's Liberation
Army is increasingly active in other regions of the world, such
as Africa and Latin America. The committee encourages the other
combatant commands to consult and coordinate with U.S. Pacific
Command in their relations with the People's Republic of China
to ensure effective unity of effort.
Use of Security Force Assistance Advisory Teams in Afghanistan
A central element of the U.S. strategy in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan has been the development of the Afghan
National Security Forces (ANSF). Since military operations
began, the Department of Defense has used a variety of
approaches to mentor, advise, and partner with ANSF, including
the use of individual training teams, as well as brigade combat
teams specially augmented with leaders to carry out the
advisory and assistance mission. Neither the training teams nor
the augments provided to the brigade combat teams existed in
any of the military services' doctrinal structures. Instead,
they were typically sourced with personnel who were identified
individually, and generally consisted of company- and field-
grade officers and senior non-commissioned officers who were
taken from other units. In the past, the Department of Defense
has faced some difficulty in sourcing these teams without
affecting the readiness of its overall force.
In June 2011, the President announced that the U.S. mission
in Afghanistan would be moving from combat to support by
December 31, 2014. Over the next 2 years, lead responsibility
for security will transition to the Afghan Government, and its
security forces. To support this transition, the Department of
Defense plans to use small teams of advisors, referred to as
``security force assistance advisor teams,'' to help generate,
employ, and sustain the ANSF. While this concept is in the
early stages of implementation, U.S. commanders in Afghanistan
believe these teams will intensify the pace of development of
ANSF capabilities amidst the drawdown of coalition forces. The
majority of the security force assistance advisor teams are
being sourced from the Marine Corps and the Army. In some
cases, deployed units have been tasked with creating the teams,
while in other cases teams have been created using individuals
drawn from U.S.-based units or globally sourced.
The committee is aware of the prior work conducted by the
Government Accountability Office evaluating the use of advisor
teams for training security forces in the Republic of Iraq and
in Afghanistan, and the impact this had on the readiness of
U.S. forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to review plans for establishing
the security force assistance advisory teams and the use of
these teams to further develop the capabilities of the ANSF,
and to report the results of this review to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 15, 2013. The Comptroller General should
evaluate the extent to which the Department of Defense has
defined intended roles and missions for the advisor teams,
including personnel, equipment, and training requirements; the
extent to which the Marine Corps and the Army have met these
requirements; adjustments, if any, in the Department of
Defense's plans for continuing to use the augmented brigade/
regimental combat teams for advisory missions; and the Marine
Corps and Army's ability to source these requirements,
including any impacts on overall readiness.
Village Stability Operations and Afghan Local Police
The committee is aware of continued expansion of local
security initiatives such as Village Stability Operations (VSO)
and the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program, designed to empower
local elders and marginalize the influence of the criminal and
extremist insurgency. The committee is aware that these
activities have grown in scope and scale, and are effectively
empowering Afghans to enable security and stability at the
local level with support from, and in coordination with,
district, provincial, and national level authorities from the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) 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
Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command-
Afghanistan (CFSOCC-A), which had heretofore been manned almost
exclusively by Special Operations Forces. The committee
understands that program goals include an expansion to
approximately 30,000 Afghan Local Police within nearly 100
districts.
The committee understands that as ALP sites mature, the
need for daily U.S. Special Operations Forces presence
decreases, and that certain mature sites are being monitored
and maintained by U.S. general purpose forces. While the
committee understands that these mature sites require limited
over-watch by U.S. and coalition forces, the committee remains
concerned that improper and inconsistent expansion of VSO/ALP
efforts are jeopardizing realized gains, encouraging splinter
and outlier activities not coordinated within the overall
strategy, and potentially damaging credibility of coalition
forces and GIRoA when unable to deliver security, development,
and governance as promised or envisioned at the local,
district, provincial and national levels. These concerns may be
manifesting in recent incidents of violence involving ALP
suggesting at best, potential problems in vetting and
recruiting, or at worst, Taliban and insurgent infiltration of
ALP.
The committee therefore encourages the Commander,
International Security Forces in Afghanistan to ensure
consistent program expansion, to ensure vetting and recruiting
standards are not lowered, and to incorporate or disband where
appropriate non-GIRoA approved similar or outlier programs not
coordinated within the overall strategy such as Critical
Infrastructure Protection, Community-Based Security Solutions,
and the Interim Security for Critical Infrastructure.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan
This section would amend subsection (a) of section 1201 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) by extending the Commanders' Emergency
Response Program in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through
fiscal year 2013.
Section 1202--Modification of Authorities Relating to Program to Build
the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces
This section would modify the authority of the Secretary of
Defense to direct, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, programs to build the capacity of foreign forces to
conduct counterterrorism and stability operations authorized
pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), commonly
referred to as ``1206'' authority, to include small-scale
military construction as part of the authorized types of
capacity building. The committee believes that small-scale
military construction, under $0.75 million per program, may be
required for long term sustainability of capacity building
activities. However, the committee expects that any small-scale
military construction projects authorized under this section
would be a supporting, logical component of a comprehensive
``1206'' program, and not a stand-alone project. This section
would limit the total amount authorized for small-scale
military construction projects to no more than $25.0 million of
the $350.0 million authorized for the ``1206'' authority in
fiscal year 2013.
This section would also authorize the Secretary of Defense
to obligate and expend up to 20 percent of the amount
authorized for fiscal year 2013 for programs authorized in
fiscal year 2014, provided the Secretary submits written
certification and notification to the specified congressional
committees by September 30, 2013.
Section 1203--Three-Year Extension of Authority for Non-Reciprocal
Exchanges of Defense Personnel Between the United States and Foreign
Countries
This section would extend, through September 30, 2015, the
authority provided in section 1207 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that
allows the Secretary of Defense to enter into non-reciprocal
international defense personnel exchange agreements.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
Section 1211--One-Year Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of
Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States
Military Operations
This section would amend section 1233 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1213 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition
nations for support provided to the United States for military
operations through fiscal year 2013, and making certain
technical amendments. This section amends the limitation on
amounts available by establishing that the authority must not
exceed $1.65 billion and that the total amount of
reimbursements and support to Pakistan may not exceed $650
million during fiscal year 2013. Additionally, this section
would prohibit reimbursement or support authorized to be
provided to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
until the Secretary of Defense provides a report to the
congressional defense committees that outlines: the model for
reimbursement, including how claims are proposed and
adjudicated; new conditions or caveats that the Government of
Pakistan places on the use of its supply routes; and the new
cost associated with transit through supply routes in Pakistan.
Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to
certify that the Government of Pakistan is committed to:
supporting counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, its
associated movements, the Haqqani Network, and other domestic
and foreign terrorist organizations; dismantling improvised
explosive device (IED) networks and interdicting precursor
chemicals used in the manufacture of IEDs; preventing the
proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise; and
issuing visas in a timely manner for United States visitors
engaged in counterterrorism efforts and assistance programs in
Pakistan.
Section 1212--Authority To Support Operations and Activities of the
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
This section would amend section 1215(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) by specifying that the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may use funds provided
to the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) to
provide training and assistance to Iraqi Ministry of Defense
personnel. This section would also limit the total funding
authorized for operations and activities for OSC-I to $508.0
million in fiscal year 2013. In addition, this section would
require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees no later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act that includes: (1) the plan to
consolidate Office sites; (2) the status of any pending
requests for additional United States military forces for the
Office; (3) the legal status and legal protections provided to
Office personnel, the operational impact of such status and
protections, and the associated constraints on the operational
capacity of such personnel by reason of their legal status; (4)
the operational and functional limitations and authorities of
Office personnel; and (5) a description of potential direct
threats to Office personnel and their capacity to provide
adequate force protection to thwart those threats.
Finally, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, the committee noted the importance of the stability
and security of the Republic of Iraq and expressed concerns
about ``essential gaps'' in the Iraqi Security Forces
capabilities, as reported by U.S. Forces-Iraq. Consistent with
these concerns, the committee is disappointed that balances
within the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), which could be
used to address these gaps, remain unobligated, due in large
part to the inability of the Secretary of Defense to make
certain certifications regarding the commitment of the
Government of Iraq. The committee encourages OSC-I to minimize
unnecessary staffing or overhead and to utilize the funds
authorized for the Office to provide adequate force protection
and to address the capability gaps of the Iraqi Security Forces
to the maximum extent practicable.
Section 1213--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Funds for
Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan
This section would amend section 1216 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383), as amended most recently by section 1216 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) by extending the authority to use funds for
reintegration activities in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and authorizing $35.0 million for fiscal year 2013 for this
authority.
Section 1214--Prohibition on Use of Private Security Contractors and
Members of the Afghan Public Protection Force To Provide Security for
Members of the Armed Forces and Military Installations and Facilities
in Afghanistan
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for the
purpose of contracting for security-guard functions at a
military installation or facility in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan at which members of the Armed Forces deployed to
Afghanistan are garrisoned or housed; otherwise employing
private security contractors to provide security for members of
the Armed Forces deployed to Afghanistan; or employing the
Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF) to provide security for
such members or to perform such security-guard functions at
such a military installation or facility. This section would
further require the Armed Forces to provide such functions
organically and for the President to provide sufficient members
of the Armed Forces to ensure that such duties do not detract
from other missions in Afghanistan. This section would allow
the President to waive the requirements of this section if the
President certifies that private security contractors or the
APPF can provide at least an equal level of security and force
protection as members of the Armed Forces and that such
contractors or APPF are independently screened and vetted by
the Armed Forces. Finally, this section would require the
Secretary of Defense submit a quarterly report to the
congressional defense committees on attempted and successful
attacks on U.S. Armed Forces conducted by members of the Afghan
National Security Forces, APPF, or private security contractors
and efforts to prevent such attacks.
Section 1215--Report on Updates and Modifications to Campaign Plan for
Afghanistan
This section would repeal section 1226 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) and establish a report on updates and modifications to the
campaign plan for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. This
section would require that the Comptroller General of the
United States submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the date on which any
substantial updates for modifications are made to the campaign
plan for Afghanistan. This reporting requirement would
terminate on September 30, 2014.
Section 1216--United States Military Support in Afghanistan
This section would express the sense of Congress about the
United States mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
This section would also require the President to notify the
congressional defense committees of any decision to reduce the
number of United States Armed Forces deployed in Afghanistan
below the number of such Armed Forces deployed to Afghanistan
on (1) December 31, 2012, (2) December 31, 2013, and (3)
December 31, 2014, prior to any public announcement of such a
decision. This section would require such a notification to
include an assessment of conditions on the ground that enable
such a force reduction, including the relevant security risk
metrics associated with the reduction in force levels and an
assessment of the operational capability of the Afghan National
Security Forces.
Section 1217--Extension and Modification of Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Fund
This section would amend 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 National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), by extending the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF)
through fiscal year 2013. Additionally, this section would
modify section 1220(b)(2) of Public Law 112-81, to require, in
any year in which amounts are made available to PCF, the
Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of
State, to submit an update to the report on the strategy to
utilize the fund, and the metrics used to determine progress
with respect to the fund. This section would also limit the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to obligate or expend
funds made available to the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
during fiscal year 2013 to not more than 10 percent of the
amount available until such time as the update is submitted to
the appropriate congressional committees.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran
Section 1221--Declaration of Policy
This section would express certain findings related to the
threat represented by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the
United States, the State of Israel, and Iran's neighbors. This
section would further declare that it is the policy of the
United States to take all necessary measures, including
military action if necessary, to prevent Iran from threatening
the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a
nuclear weapon.
Section 1222--United States Military Preparedness in the Middle East
This section includes findings that recognize the
importance to the national security of the United States and
its allies of conducting military exercises in the Persian Gulf
and the Gulf of Oman. These exercises benefit the readiness of
the U.S. military and allied forces, as well as serve as a
signal to the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the
willingness of the United States to defend its national
security interests.
This section would further require the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the congressional defense committees not later
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a
plan to strengthen the presence of the U.S. 5th Fleet in the
Middle East to include conducting military deployments,
exercises, and other military readiness activities.
Section 1223--Annual Report on the Military Power of Iran
This section would amend Section 1245 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84; 123 Stat. 2541) by requiring an annex to the military power
report on Iran in which the Commander of U.S. Central Command
would provide an assessment of:
(1) Any critical gaps in intelligence that limit the
ability of U.S. Central Command to counter threats
emanating from Iran;
(2) Any gaps in the capabilities, capacity, and
authorities to counter Iranian threats to the United
States Armed Forces and U.S. interests in the region;
(3) Any gaps in the capabilities and capacity of the
U.S. Central Command Commander to take military action
against Iran to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon; and
(4) Any other matters the U.S. Central Command
Commander considers to be relevant.
This section would apply to a military power report on Iran
submitted following the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters
Section 1231--Annual Report on Military and Security Developments
Involving 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 amended by section 1246(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), and
as most recently amended by section 1238 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), by requiring assessments of space and cyber strategies,
goals, and capabilities of the People's Republic of China. This
section would also require the Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command to provide his assessment of gaps in intelligence,
capabilities, capacity and authorities to address challenges
from the People's Republic of China.
Section 1232--Report on Military and Security Developments Involving
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a second report on military and security developments
involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which
would be due on November 1, 2013. This section would also
require the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command to provide his
assessment of gaps in intelligence, capabilities, capacity, and
authorities to counter North Korean threats to U.S. Armed
Forces and U.S. interests in the region.
Section 1233--Report on Host Nation Support for Overseas United States
Military Installations and United States Armed Forces Deployed in
Country
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to
the appropriate congressional committees not later than March 1
of each year from 2013 through 2015, on the direct, indirect
and burden-sharing contributions made by host nations in
support of U.S. Armed Forces deployed in country. The committee
believes the current fiscal environment requires an
understanding of host nation contributions in order to evaluate
the costs of the forward deployment of U.S. Armed Forces. The
committee is aware that the Department of Defense was required
to submit an Annual Report on Allied Contributions to the
Common Defense, in accordance with the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1984 (Public Law 98-94), until repeal of the
reporting requirement in 2004. The committee also recognizes
that the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress not later
than 30 days after each fiscal year, a report regarding direct
contributions from foreign countries which are accepted and
expended for real property, services, and supplies. However,
the committee believes additional information is required for
proper congressional oversight.
Section 1234--NATO Special Operations Headquarters
This section would authorize appropriations for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Operations Headquarters
(NSHQ) through fiscal year 2013. This section would also limit
the obligation or expenditure of funds for fiscal year 2013 to
not more than 50 percent until the Secretary of Defense
finalizes and formalizes the establishment of an executive
agent and lead component for NSHQ.
Section 1235--Reports On Exports of Missile Defense Technology to
Certain Countries
The section would require a report by the Secretary of
Defense, not later than 180 days after enactment, and each year
through 2015, detailing the types of defense assistance,
including assistance related to missile defense, provided by
the Department of Defense to countries that export space,
counter-space and ballistic missile equipment, material and
technologies that could be used in other countries' space,
counter space and ballistic missile programs. The report would
also include a description of such exports by recipients of
U.S. defense assistance to countries with space, counter-space
and ballistic missile programs, including a description of
specific technologies that are exported to such countries. The
section would require the report to be provided to the
congressional defense committees, and the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Section 1236--Limitation on Funds to Provide the Russian Federation
with Access to Missile Defense Technology
The section would provide that no funds made available for
fiscal years 2012 or 2013 may be used to provide the Russian
Federation with access to missile defense information that is
or was classified as of January 2, 2012. The section would
permit access to be provided to other U.S. missile defense
information if certain reporting and certification requirements
are met; such reports would be provided to the House and Senate
Armed Services and foreign relations committees.
Section 1237--International Agreements Relating to Missile Defense
The section would state the sense of the Congress that an
agreement regarding missile defense cooperation between the
United States and the Russian Federation through the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or a provision to amend the
charter of the NATO-Russia Council, should not be considered
politically or legally binding on the United States unless
ratified by the Senate as a treaty or specifically authorized
by an Act of Congress.
The section would further provide that any limitation on
U.S. missile defenses shall not be binding, nor enter into
force with respect to the United States unless ratified by the
Senate as a treaty or specifically authorized by an Act of
Congress. The section would also impose an annual notification
requirement concerning recognition by Russia of the sovereign
rights of the United States with respect to missile defense.
The section would also provide that no funds authorized for
fiscal year 2012 or after may be used to implement a defense
technology cooperation agreement with the Russian Federation
until 60 days after such agreement has been transmitted to the
congressional defense committees.
The section would prohibit the use of funds authorized for
fiscal years 2012 or 2013 for the implementation of a missile
defense agreement with the Russian Federation until the
President transmits to the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees and the foreign relations committees a copy of the
draft agreement proposed between the United States and the
Russian Federation at Deauville, France in May of 2011.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for the Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $519.1
million for fiscal year 2013, representing an increase of $10.9
million from the amount requested and authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2012. The request for fiscal year
2013 included $68.3 million for Strategic Offensive Arms
Elimination, $14.6 million for Chemical Weapons Destruction,
$99.8 million for Global Nuclear Security, $276.4 million for
Cooperative Biological Engagement, $32.4 million for
Proliferation Prevention, $2.4 million for Threat Reduction
Engagement, and $25.2 million for Other Assessments/
Administrative support.
The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR
program and believes that the program is important 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,
has sometimes limited progress of the CTR program. The
committee notes, however, that the CTR program has made
significant achievements, and that much work remains to be
done.
Congress has 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) 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 and
reaffirmed in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, 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. Lastly, the
committee continues to believe that concrete metrics remain
important for measuring the impact and effectiveness of CBEP
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.
The committee authorizes $519.1 million, the amount of the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program
The committee continues to support the important
nonproliferation objectives of the Cooperative Biological
Engagement Program (CBEP). The committee recognizes that the
continued success of this program is directly tied to the
unique involvement of the host partner countries, as well as
international and U.S. private sector involvement through the
sustainment and commercialization effort. The committee
believes this effort leverages U.S. Government funds by
providing additional contributions to CBEP projects from the
various other sources. The involvement of the U.S. private
sector and international partnerships helps ensure the
program's ability to provide non-military, commercial
employment opportunities for former and potential weapons of
mass destruction scientists and engineers in the former Soviet
Union and other countries and regions of non-proliferation
concern. The committee recommends that the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency ensure that CBEP projects include a
sustainment and commercialization component which include
international, as well as commercial U.S. industry
partnerships.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Biological Surveillance Network
The committee remains 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. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
assess whether the biological surveillance network would fall
short of addressing the global biological threat. The
assessment was supposed to 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.
In the committee report, the committee also directed the
Secretary to submit a report within 150 days of the date of
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), 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 modifications to the CBEP mission, in
unclassified form with a classified annex. The committee looks
forward to receiving the Secretary's report by May 29, 2012, as
required.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Metrics
The committee is aware of the January 2012 National Academy
of Sciences study ``Improving Metrics for the Department of
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program'' that recommended
ways the Secretary of Defense could improve the metrics of the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and better communicate the
approach to metrics. While the report notes some CTR program
activities have reasonable metrics, others do not have a
concise statement of objectives and a description of how the
program is intended to reduce a threat or risk. The committee
encourages the Secretary to develop clear, concise statements
of objectives for the CTR program, descriptions of how program
activities intended to reduce a threat or risk; prioritize and
refine metrics within a program to help decision makers; and
improve planning for how program changes and metric results may
feed into the CTR program decision making process. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue
consulting with the congressional defense committees about
improvements and developments to the CTR program.
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 $519.1
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 2013. This section would also
require notification to Congress 15 days before the Secretary
of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2013 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.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Working Capital Fund Cash Corpus Concerns
The committee is concerned that the restrictions the
Department of Defense places on itself are constraining the
management of working capital funds, specifically the Defense
Working Capital Fund as it pertains to the management of fuel
and the Air Force Working Capital Fund in regards to its fuel-
centric transportation mission. The Department's Financial
Management Regulation places heavy emphasis on maintaining a 7-
to 10-day cash balance. This narrow range does not provide the
flexibility required for the management of funds when
attempting to mitigate market fluctuations in fuel. This
arbitrary cash corpus range constricts the ability of the fund
managers to achieve their primary objective, which is to
maintain a constant rate for the customer throughout the year.
The committee has attempted twice thus far to highlight this
management problem to the Department with little success.
Instead of repeatedly sending unsuccessful legislative
proposals requesting authority to establish special accounts,
the committee recommends that the Department modify the
Financial Management Regulations to adjust the range of the
cash corpus required for fuel-related working capital funds to
mitigate the continued fluctuation of rates charged to the
customer during the fiscal year.
The committee prefers to see the Department take this
action voluntarily through its own regulatory process, but the
committee will consider a legislative mandate if necessary to
achieve the stated objective.
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.
Section 1407--Cemeterial Expenses
This section would authorize appropriations for the Army
Cemeterial Expenses for Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia,
at the level 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 $44.9 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 2013. This section would also permit the use of additional
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after
Congress receives notification.
Section 1412--Additional Security of Strategic Materials Supply Chains
This section would amend the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act to include ``single point of
failure'' as an additional objective of the National Defense
Stockpile.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1421--Reduction of Unobligated Balances Within the Pentagon
Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund
The committee continues to be concerned with the execution
of funds within the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving
Fund. Unobligated balances within the account are estimated to
be lower in fiscal year 2013 than they were in the fiscal year
2011 budget request. However, this unobligated balance is still
above the levels maintained when the Pentagon was under
significant renovation, and capital expenditures dictated a
larger balance due to the multi-year nature of the expenses. In
addition, while the targeted cash balance position for the fund
is $92.0 million, the current projections place the balance at
more than $200.0 million. Without a plan to use these funds for
future improvements or to return funds to the customer, the
committee believes this high-cash balance is unnecessary. Based
on these findings, the committee questions the need for a high-
cash balance without future obligations, and recommends a
transfer of $26.0 million in unobligated balances to the
treasury.
Section 1422--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 1423--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home
This section would authorize $67.6 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2013.
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
Enduring Freedom.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Fund
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained no funding for National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment. Elsewhere in this Act, the budget request contained
$3.1 billion for National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment.
The committee notes that the base request is a 44 percent
reduction from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The specific
amount of resources, including equipment, needed to adequately
sustain the National Guard and Reserve Component's new
operational reserve status remains a concern because of the
fiscal environment, especially given the dual mission
responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve Components, in
particular the National Guard. The committee believes the
National Guard and Reserve Components still have significant
equipment shortages in modernized equipment, specifically in
rotorcraft and the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. Over the
past 8 years, National Guard and Reserve Component equipment
procurement averaged $7.0 billion annually. The committee notes
that across the Future Years Defense Program, procurement is
expected to average $3.8 billion annually, a significant
reduction from previous year requests. The committee also notes
that National Guard and Reserve component equipment
modernization is not funded to 100 percent of what the National
Guard and Reserve Components believe their requirements to be
and that they are expected to have unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2013. For example, the Army National Guard will
require additional funding over the next 10 years for tactical
wheeled vehicles and aviation systems of $500.0 million and
$1.3 billion, respectively. The Air National Guard equipment
modernization shortfall is $1.4 billion over the next 10 years.
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, internal and external fuel tanks for CH-47 and AH-64
rotorcraft, and other critical dual-use procurement items for
the National Guard and Reserve Components.
The committee recommends $500.0 million, an increase of
$500.0 million, for National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment within the Overseas Contingency Operations budget
request. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends $3.1
billion, full funding of the request, 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 addition 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--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
This section would authorize various transfer authorities,
reporting requirements, and other associated activities for the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.
Section 1532--One-Year Extension of Project Authority and Related
Requirements of Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in
Afghanistan
This section would amend section 1535 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383), as amended by section 1534 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), relating to the Task Force for Business and Stability
Operations (TFBSO) in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, by
extending the authority for TFBSO, narrowing the scope of
authorized projects to those associated with Afghanistan's
mining and natural resource industries, and reducing the amount
of funds authorized for TFBSO to $50.0 million for fiscal year
2013. This section would also restrict the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to obligate or expend authorized funds for
fiscal year 2013 until such time as the Secretary notifies the
appropriate congressional committees that the activities of the
Task Force will be transitioned to the Department of State by
September 30, 2013.
Section 1533--Limitations on Availability of Funds in Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund
This section would amend section 1513 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by subsection 1531(b) of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383), by extending the existing limitations on
the availability of funds for the Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund through fiscal year 2013. Additionally, this section
applies a limitation for funds authorized to be appropriated in
fiscal year 2013, or otherwise available, for the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund in fiscal year 2013 for the Afghan Public
Protection Force (APPF) until the Secretary of Defense makes
several certifications regarding the content of each
subcontract to a contract of the Department of Defense for APPF
services, or any agreement between the United States and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for services of the APPF for
the Department.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
certify that the Minister of Interior of Afghanistan is
committed to ensuring sufficient numbers of APPF personnel are
trained to match demand and attrition; sufficient clarity
exists with respect to command and control of APPF personnel
and the role of risk management consultants; the program
established pursuant to section 1225 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)
relating to a program to provide for the registration and end-
use monitoring of defense articles and defense services
transferred to Afghanistan, is sufficient to account for any
United States Government-owned defense articles transferred to
the APPF; mechanisms are in place to ensure the United States
does not pay redundant charges in the performance of an APPF
effort; the Minister of Interior of Afghanistan has established
elements for the APPF as required by subparagraphs (A) through
(F) of section 862(a)(2) of Public Law 110-181 relating to
contractors performing private security functions in areas of
combat operations; and the Secretary is confident the security
provided to supply convoys to Department of Defense
construction projects, and to Armed Forces deployed in support
of operations in Afghanistan will not be degraded. In addition,
this section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2013 for the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund for infrastructure
improvements at an APPF training center. Finally, this section
would require a quarterly report on the APPF be submitted to
the congressional defense committees through the quarter ending
December 31, 2014.
TITLE XVI--INDUSTRIAL BASE MATTERS
OVERVIEW
The committee established a Panel on Business Challenges
within the Defense Industry, appointed by Chairman Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith on September 12,
2011. The panel's activities extended over the course of 6
months. This Panel was charged with examining:
(1) Contracting or regulatory challenges facing the
defense industry;
(2) The use of incentives and mandates to shape the
defense industrial base;
(3) Structural challenges facing various sectors
within the industrial base, including universities and
research institutes;
(4) The impact of the current fiscal environment on
the health of the defense industrial base at both the
prime and subcontractor levels; and
(5) Opportunities to reduce barriers to entry.
The Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense
Industry conducted hearings, held roundtable discussions with
industry, and examined many challenges within the defense
industrial base (DIB). Through this work, the Panel developed a
report and an accompanying set of recommendations to increase
the efficiency and health of the DIB.
As a direct result of the Panel's work, the committee
includes several provisions in this title regarding the defense
industrial base and the activities of the Department of Defense
related to small businesses. The committee also includes a
provision elsewhere in this Act related to the roles and
responsibilities of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy. Furthermore, the
committee includes a subtitle in this title that addresses
small business matters writ large.
The committee applauds the exceptional, bipartisan effort
of Panel in examining these complex matters and providing the
committee with focused, actionable recommendations that can be
included in this Act. The committee also commends the House
Committee on Small Business and the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for their hard work in
developing and advancing this important legislation.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Audit Agencies
The committee notes that the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) is under the authority, direction, and control of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Defense
Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is under the authority,
direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee is also
aware that section 133 of title 10, United States Code,
requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to prescribe policies to ensure that
audit and oversight of contractor activities are coordinated
and carried out in a manner to prevent duplication by different
elements of the Department of Defense. However, the findings of
the committee's Panel on Business Challenges in the Defense
Industry indicate that more needs to be done to improve the
coordination, efficiency, and oversight of DCAA and DCMA. The
committee believes there would be potential benefits if the two
organizations were more closely aligned within the Department's
organizational structure. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the
feasibility and advisability of realigning DCAA and DCMA such
that they are under the authority, direction, and control of
the same Under Secretary of Defense, and to submit a report on
the findings to the congressional defense committees by October
1, 2012.
Effect of Drawdown on Manufacturing Industrial Base
The committee is aware that the drawdown of operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan has caused, and will continue to cause,
manufacturing workload to diminish. The committee believes this
diminished workload and workforce reductions ultimately could
lead to the loss of critical industrial base capabilities. As
the Department of Defense moves forward in developing the
strategy required in section 1604 of this Act, the committee
believes the Secretary should identify and consider critical
manufacturing capabilities across the various components of the
industrial base in the public and private sectors. The
committee also believes that the Secretary should evaluate
workload requirements for sustaining critical activities across
the industrial base to support military operations.
Export Control Reform
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to reform the
current U.S. export control system. While the committee
supports efforts to reduce the complexity of the export control
system by improving efficiency, increasing transparency, and
improving inter-agency coordination, the committee is concerned
that the U.S. Government has not fully assessed the potential
impact of the proposed reforms. The committee notes that the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) raised concerns
regarding the proposed reforms in its March 12, 2012 report
entitled ``Export Controls: Agencies Need to Assess Control
List Reform's Impact on Compliance Activities'' (GAO-12-394SU).
Among the findings, the GAO report states that U.S. agencies
have not fully assessed the potential impact that the proposed
reforms might have on compliance activities, to include the
identification of resources necessary to support such
activities. Additionally, the committee is aware that the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence required a review of
the threats to U.S. security by ``technological export'' in the
committee report (S. Rept. 112-43) accompanying the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The
results of that review have not yet been reported to Congress.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the President's budget
request for the Department of Commerce for fiscal year 2013 did
not identify the need for additional compliance officers. The
committee believes that the risks and resource implications of
the potential reforms to the export control system should be
identified and steps should be taken to sufficiently resource
affected agencies in order to prevent increased backlog in
licensing, degraded enforcement, and increased risk of loss of
control of information and technology from the defense
industrial base.
Germanium Wafer Procurement
The committee notes that germanium is currently a key
component in satellite solar panels where size, efficiency, and
power are crucial, as germanium enables solar energy to power
satellites and other spacecraft. Further, the committee notes
that because of this capability, the Department of Defense
maintains an interest in the secure supply of solar-cell
capable germanium wafers. The committee is aware that a request
for information concerning germanium wafer production for use
in space-based solar technology was recently released by the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The committee is concerned that
the current solicitation unfairly and unnecessarily limits
competition to a sole-source procurement on the basis of an
urgent national security requirement. No evidence has been
provided to the committee to support this justification. The
committee is concerned that DLA has unfairly eliminated a
potential domestic supplier of space solar cell-capable
germanium wafers by failing to take steps necessary to qualify
a second domestic source of germanium wafers and, as a result,
is restricting the competition from domestic suppliers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Defense
Logistics Agency, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy, to review any related procurement action by August 1,
2012, in order to:
(1) Determine if the need for germanium wafers is so
urgent as to require a sole-source procurement in lieu
of the opportunity to qualify a second domestic
producer;
(2) Examine the current requirements documentation
and acquisition plans for opportunities to increase
competition and make such changes as necessary to meet
the near-term needs of the warfighter, while maximizing
opportunities for the industrial base; and
(3) Identify steps necessary to qualify additional
providers of germanium wafers to meet national security
requirements.
The committee directs the Director, Defense Logistics
Agency to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 1, 2012, on the findings of the review and to provide
any recommendations for improving surety of supply of germanium
wafers.
Impact of Federal Prison Industries on the Clothing and Textile
Industry
The committee remains concerned with the continued reliance
on the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) clothing and textile
business segment by the Department of Defense. The committee is
specifically troubled that FPI's 2011 Annual Financial
Management Report and 2011 Sales Report clearly show that 78%
of their clothing and textile sales are to the Department of
Defense. This accounts for approximately 25% of FPI's total
sales, even though clothing and textiles represent only one of
FPI's seven business segments.
The committee believes that any continued expansion of FPI
contracts in the Department of Defense clothing and textile
market in fiscal year 2013 will weaken the domestic
manufacturing base as loss of contracts under FPI's mandatory
source preference will lead to job losses in the industry. As
already required by law, FPI should diversify its business, and
develop new revenue streams that will not result in U.S. job
losses, nor harm the domestic manufacturing base in the
clothing and textile business segment.
Importance of Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense Mentor-
Protege Program (MPP) is critical. The program assists small
businesses (proteges) to successfully compete for prime
contract and subcontract awards by partnering with large
companies (mentors) under individual, project-based agreements.
The committee further notes that the program has offered
substantial assistance to small, disadvantaged businesses and
that it is essential to reversing the negative perception of
doing business with small businesses, especially service-
disabled veteran-owned businesses. The committee supports the
Department of Defense MPP and notes that successful mentor-
protege agreements develop a symbiotic relationship for the
protege, the mentor, and the Department of Defense, and ensure
that more small businesses are able to contract with the
Department. In coordination with the House Committee on Small
Business, the committee also includes a provision elsewhere in
this title that would authorize the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to establish mentor-protege programs
for other agencies of the Federal Government.
Inclusion of Small Business Participation Statistics in Annual
Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs
In accordance with the Joint Explanatory Statement
accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2009
(division C of Public Law 110-329), the Comptroller General of
the United States conducts an annual assessment of selected
weapon programs. The committee finds these assessments
valuable. However, the committee notes that small business
participation statistics are not currently included in the
Comptroller General's annual report and believes that inclusion
of such information would be beneficial. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General to incorporate small
business participation statistics for each weapon program
included in its annual assessment of selected weapon programs
delivered to the congressional defense committees.
Inspector General Review of Intellectual Property Issues
The committee is concerned with protecting small business
intellectual property rights when doing business with the
Department of Defense (DOD). As noted in the Panel on Business
Challenges in the Defense Industry's report ``Challenges to
Doing Business with the Department of Defense'', ``Smaller
businesses can experience particular difficulties in protecting
their rights because of their size and the comparatively
limited resources available to them.'' The report also notes
that, ``DOD contractors, including small businesses, have
objected both to the breadth of the rights in technical data
that the government acquires under government contracts and
subcontracts, and to the government's compliance with the
restrictions upon the use, disclosure, or release of technical
data in which the Government has government purpose or limited
rights. Small business contractors, in particular, have alleged
that Government employees improperly furnished materials to
their competitors so that their competitors could `reverse
engineer' their proprietary products, as well as undertook
research projects duplicating proprietary solutions and then
published the resulting intellectual property as Government-
owned.'' Unfortunately, the committee has little grounds for
action beyond anecdotal claims.
Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense to conduct a review to address the
lack of empirical data and to submit 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
the enactment of this Act. The Inspector General should review
a representative sample of protests, including lawsuits and
other administrative contracting procedures, between the
Government and contractors, as well as between prime
contractors and their subcontractors, in order to:
(1) Estimate the number of cases involving breeches
of intellectual property rights;
(2) Analyze the representative cases to determine if
there are significant similarities in the grounds for
the protests;
(3) Determine if there was compliance with current
laws and regulations related to intellectual property
rights;
(4) Assess if there are trends in these cases that
might indicate gaps in existing intellectual property
rights laws and regulations;
(5) Report on the outcomes of the cases that have
been concluded; and
(6) Provide recommendations as appropriate.
Procurement Technical Assistance Program
The committee notes that the Procurement Technical
Assistance Program (PTAP) was authorized by section 1241 of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1985
(Public Law 98-525) in an effort to expand the number of
businesses capable of participating in Government contracts.
The committee also notes that Procurement Technical Assistance
Centers serve as a unique resource for small businesses to
obtain information and training on acquisition procedures,
specialized solicitations, and Federal contracting information.
The committee believes that PTAP is a key program for fostering
small business contracting with the Department of Defense by
helping to generate new suppliers for the Department, which
results in a stronger industrial base and increased
competition. The committee directs the Director, Defense
Logistics Agency to review the Procurement Technical Assistance
Program and to submit to the congressional defense committees
by October 1, 2012, its recommendations for strengthening the
program and ensuring that local Procurement Technical
Assistance Centers are sufficiently resourced to educate the
small business community and that small businesses are aware of
PTAP and the services it provides.
Recycling of Rare Earth Elements
The committee is aware that in its December 2011 report
entitled ``Critical Materials Strategy,'' the Department of
Energy states that the heavy rare earth phosphors, dysprosium,
europium, terbium, and yttrium, are particularly important
given their relative scarcity combined with their importance to
clean energy, energy efficiency, hybrid and electric vehicles,
and advanced defense systems, among other key technologies.
While new sources of production of rare earth elements show
promise, these are focused primarily on the light rare earth
elements. The committee notes that the recycling of end-use
technologies that use rare earth elements can provide a near-
term opportunity to recapture, reprocess, and reuse some of the
rare earth elements contained in them.
The committee believes that fluorescent lighting materials
could prove to be a promising recyclable source of heavy rare
earth elements, and the committee believes the Department of
Defense can increase supplies of heavy rare earth elements by
performing a cost-benefit analysis on the viability of
recycling its own fluorescent lighting waste for use in defense
systems. While the committee is concerned that rare earth
materials are being lost due to inadequate recycling efforts,
the committee believes that the recycling of such elements, as
well as the maturation of new sources of production and a
developmental effort focused on alternatives to heavy rare
earth elements, are necessary components of a prudent strategy
to address global demand for these elements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2013, with its recommendations on how the Department
of Defense can capture its fluorescent lighting waste and make
the material available to entities that have the ability to
extract rare earth phosphors, reprocess and separate them in an
environmentally safe manner, and return these rare earths into
the domestic rare earth supply chain. The report should
specifically address disposal and mitigation plans for residual
mercury and other hazardous byproducts to be produced by the
recycling process. The report should also specifically
establish recommendations to prevent the export of such heavy
rare earth materials obtained from U.S. Government sources to
non-allied nations.
Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier Review
The committee is aware that the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy is
undertaking an effort to conduct a comprehensive, repeatable,
and fact-based approach to mapping the defense industrial base.
The ``Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' (S2T2) review is aimed
at creating a common taxonomy across multiple sectors of the
industrial base to better identify and quantify the defense
industrial base. The committee is encouraged by this effort and
believes that both the Department of Defense and the industrial
base would benefit from the identification of early-warning
indicators of risk, single points of failure, and areas where
the Department has an over-reliance on foreign sourcing. The
committee believes that the S2T2 review would assist long-term
planning and investment decisions both within and across the
military departments, and it would aid in the development of
the national security strategy for the national technology and
industrial base, as required elsewhere in this title. However,
the committee is concerned that the potential benefits of the
S2T2 review will not be actualized if the mapping is not
continuously updated and leveraged to inform decision-makers.
The committee notes that Section 852 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81)
requires the Secretary of Defense to include a status report on
the S2T2 effort in the annual report to Congress on the defense
industrial base submitted for fiscal year 2012. The committee
believes this information, when aggregated with the other
matters required in the report, will be useful to the
Department and to Congress. The committee also notes that this
report, due March 1, 2012, has yet to be delivered.
Service Disabled Veteran Contracting Within the Department of Defense
A March 2012 Department of Defense Inspector General report
that found significant shortcomings with the Department of
Defense's service-disabled veteran owned small business
(SDVOSB) set aside program. Among its finding, the report found
that in a sample of 27 contracts from FY2010, $340 million in
federal taxpayer dollars were awarded to contractors ``who
potentially misstated'' their company's eligibility for SDVOSB
set-asides. Another six contracts cited in the report, valued
at approximately $1.9 million, were awarded to ineligible
contractors. Further, the report states that procedures to
verify that recipients were eligible for these set-aside
contacts ``were not adequate'' and that ``if the office does
not establish adequate procedures, it will continue to convey
the message that assisting service-disabled veterans is not a
priority.'' The report added that ``the lack of action
compromises the integrity and intention of the program, which
is to serve veterans with disabilities incurred or aggravated
in the line of duty.''
The committee directs the department to submit a report by
October 1, 2012 outlining the department's plan to address the
findings of the inspector general's report. The report shall
include an explanation of the department's process for
verifying the eligibility of those companies seeking SDVOSB
set-aside contracting opportunities, as well as improvements
that would provide more accurate verification of a bidder's
eligibility.
Small Business Specialists in the Acquisition Workforce
The committee is concerned that although the Department of
Defense has taken aggressive steps to rebuild the capacity and
capability of the acquisition workforce, it has done little to
ensure that the workforce includes a sufficient number of small
business specialists responsible for ensuring that the
Department achieve its small business contracting and
subcontracting goals. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the
acquisition workforce, identify the small business specialists,
and evaluate whether the capability and capacity of the small
business specialists in the acquisition workforce are
sufficient to meet the Department's needs. This assessment
should also include the feasibility and advisability of
establishing a small business specialist career field in the
acquisition workforce. The committee further directs the
Secretary to submit to a report on the findings to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2012.
Strategic Materials Protection Board
The committee believes that securing adequate supplies of
strategic and critical materials is necessary for the
maintenance of properly-equipped armed forces. In order to
ensure that the defense industrial base has the necessary
access to these materials, Congress established a Strategic
Materials Protection Board in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act of 2007 (Public Law 109-364). In accordance
with this law, the Board is responsible for reviewing the
availability and utilization of strategic and critical
materials through biennial meetings and providing its findings
and recommendations to Congress. These required reports are
intended to stimulate a bottom-up review of the defense
industrial base with a particular focus on the use and
availability of strategic and critical materials required to
support the United States defense industrial base, including
plans to address current and future supply-chain
vulnerabilities for strategic and critical materials.
The committee expresses concern about the Board's failure
to fulfill its statutory obligations. In 2008, the Board issued
a report that did little to assist the Department of Defense or
the congressional defense committees in determining the status
of, and way forward for, strategic material issues. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee
noted the poor performance of the Board and requested several
additional reports from the Department regarding strategic
materials. In 2010, the committee requested additional
information in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011. The Department has consistently failed to meet these
requirements.
Furthermore, Department officials have indicated that they
have encountered difficulties with scheduling regular Board
meetings as a result of the senior personnel assigned to the
Board. Therefore elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes
a provision that would amend the composition of the Board in
deference to these concerns, but would require that senior
officials from the Department continue to review and approve
the Board's reports and recommendations.
Transfer of Technology to Foreign Entities
The committee believes that the Department of Defense has
an obligation to ensure that Congress is advised of the
potential national security implications of the transfer of
technologies initially developed under Department of Defense
contracts, or the transfer of technology that has dual-use or
military applications, to foreign entities. Many U.S. companies
that participate in the defense industrial base are seeking to
expand their business in the global market. However, some of
these transactions and joint ventures may result in the
transfer of U.S. defense technologies, such as fighter aircraft
engine technologies, to foreign governments and foreign
militaries. While the legal framework to address such
technology transfers rests within current export control law
and regulations, current law does not prevent the Secretary of
Defense from exercising due diligence to protect U.S. defense
technologies. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
to take such steps as necessary to prevent the illicit transfer
of defense technologies to foreign entities, and to advise the
relevant congressional committees of the risks associated with
any such commercial transactions or joint ventures.
The committee directs the Director, Defense Security
Service, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, to
conduct an assessment of the impact of joint ventures related
to the cleared U.S. defense contractor community, and the
potential for transference of U.S. technologies to another
nation as a result of such ventures. At a minimum, the
assessment should: (1) survey the cleared defense contractor
community regarding joint ventures in place, or being pursued,
by the cleared defense contractor community; (2) determine the
extent to which such joint ventures are putting sensitive U.S.
technologies, including dual-use technologies, at risk of
transference to other entities; and (3) assess the degree to
which such joint ventures with cleared defense contractors are
tied to foreign governments or foreign militaries. The
committee further directs the Director, Defense Security
Service to provide the results of the assessment, along with
any recommendations to reduce risk of transference of sensitive
U.S. technologies to foreign governments or foreign militaries,
to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Defense Industrial Base Matters
Section 1601--Disestablishment of Defense Materiel Readiness Board
This section would repeal section 871 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) that established the Defense Materiel Readiness Board
(DMRB) within the Department of Defense. This section would
also repeal section 872 of Public Law 110-181 that provided for
designation of critical materiel readiness shortfalls by the
Secretary of Defense and created the Department of Defense
Strategic Readiness Fund. The committee is aware that the
military departments have venues and means by which they
address materiel and readiness deficiencies, and the committee
believes that the intended functions of the DMRB can be
sufficiently addressed through those mechanisms and under a
joint governance structure, such as the existing Joint
Logistics Board.
Section 1602--Assessment of Effects of Foreign Boycotts
This section would amend section 2505 of title 10, United
States Code, by requiring the periodic defense capability
assessment to include an assessment of the impact of foreign
boycotts on the national technology and industrial base. This
section would also require identification of actions necessary
to minimize the impact of foreign boycotts on the national
technology and industrial base. The committee notes the
Comptroller General of the United States review of this matter,
required in the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, is currently under way. In addressing the matters
required to be reported as a result of this assessment, the
committee requests the Comptroller General cite examples of
foreign government or foreign business boycotts that pose a
material risk to the defense industrial base.
Section 1603--Advancing Innovation Pilot Program
This section would allow the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering to establish an Advancing
Innovation Pilot Program to accelerate the commercialization of
research innovations. The committee notes that universities are
important contributors to innovation for the defense community.
The predominance of the basic research for the Department of
Defense is carried out by universities and has been focused on
increasing the fundamental understanding of scientific
principles and processes. As those fundamental concepts mature,
they lead to more applied technologies that are of direct
benefit to the warfighter. The committee is aware that over the
past 3 decades, there has been an increasing trend on
university campuses to link research activities to
commercialization in order to more quickly translate research
into industrial products. Unfortunately, the committee is
concerned that the current process does not operate
effectively, and the success rate and potential return on
investment are generally not realized as often as needed to
provide useful tools to the military.
Section 1604--National Security Strategy for National Technology and
Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2501 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to develop a
national security strategy for the technology and industrial
base. This section would require that the strategy ensure the
national technology and industrial base is capable of
supplying, equipping, and supporting the force structure
necessary to achieve the objectives set forth in the national
security strategy. This section would also codify the
requirements of section 852(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81),
relating to a strategy for securing the defense supply chain
and industrial base, within section 2504 of title 10, United
States Code. Finally, this section would amend section 2440 of
title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the national
technology and industrial base strategy developed pursuant to
section 2501 of such title be considered in the development and
implementation of acquisition plans for each major defense
acquisition program.
Subtitle B--Department of Defense Activities Related to Small Business
Matters
Section 1611--Pilot Program To Assist in the Growth and Development of
Advanced Small Business Concerns
This section would require the establishment of a pilot
program within the Department of Defense to assist in the
growth and development of advanced small business concerns.
Under the pilot program, competition for contract awards may be
restricted to advanced small business concerns under certain
conditions.
Section 1612--Role of the Directors of Small Business Programs in
Requirements Development and Acquisition Decision Processes of the
Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and promulgate guidance to ensure that the director of
each office of the Small Business Programs in the Department of
Defense are participants in the Department's requirements
development and acquisition decision processes.
Section 1613--Small Business Advocate for Defense Audit Agencies
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate an official in each defense audit agency to: advise
the director of the respective agency on all issues related to
small business concerns; serve as the agency's primary point of
contact and source of information for small business concerns;
collect relevant data and monitor the agency's conduct of
audits of small businesses; and develop and implement processes
and procedures to improve the performance of the agency related
to the timeliness of audits of small businesses.
Section 1614--Independent Assessment of Federal Procurement Contracting
Performance of the Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a contract with a Federally Funded Research and
Development Center to conduct an independent assessment of the
Department of Defense's Federal procurement performance related
to small business concerns. This section would require the
Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 1, 2014, on the independent
assessment.
Section 1615--Assessment of Small Business Programs Transition
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an independent review and assessment of the transition
of small business-developed technologies, such as those
developed under the Small Business Innovation Research Program,
into a representative sample of major weapon systems and major
automated information systems for the Department of Defense.
Section 1616--Additional Responsibilities of Inspector General of the
Department of Defense
This section would require the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to conduct peer reviews of the Department
of Defense audit agencies in accordance with and in such a
frequency as provided by Government auditing standards as
established by the Comptroller General of the United States.
This section would also require the Inspector General to
include, as part of the semiannual reports to Congress required
by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452),
information concerning any Department of Defense audit agency
that has either failed peer review or has not had a peer review
conducted in the required period.
Section 1617--Restoration of 1 Percent Funding for Administrative
Expenses of Commercialization Readiness Program of Department of
Defense
This section would amend subsection (y) of section 9 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as amended by section
5141(b)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to authorize the
Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military
departments to use not more than 1 percent of the funds
available to the Department of Defense pursuant to the Small
Business Innovation Research Program for payment of expenses
incurred to administer the Commercialization Readiness Program.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Small Business Concerns
PART I--PROCUREMENT CENTER REPRESENTATIVES
Section 1621--Procurement Center Representatives
This section would amend subsection (l) of section 15 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) to strengthen and
clarify the role and responsibilities of Procurement Center
Representatives (PCRs). This section would also allow PCRs to
review and make recommendations related to acquisition plans
and procurement methods and would require that PCRs hold a
Level III Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting, or
the equivalent Department of Defense certification.
Section 1622--Small Business Act Contracting Requirements Training
This section would require the Defense Acquisition
University and the Federal Acquisition University to establish
a course on contracting requirements under the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 644) and would require the course to be
completed by certain individuals. This section would also
require that business opportunity specialists have a Level I
Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting. Furthermore,
this section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide a report to to the Senate Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the House Committee on
Small Business not later than 365 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, on the relationship between the size and
quality of the acquisition workforce and the Federal
Government's ability to maximize small business participation
in Federal procurement.
Section 1623--Acquisition Planning
This section would amend subsection (e) of section 15 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) to require that each
Federal department or agency enumerate opportunities for the
participation of small business concerns during all acquisition
planning processes, and invite the participation of the
appropriate Procurement Center Representatives and appropriate
Directors of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization in
all acquisition processes.
PART II--GOALS FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AWARDED TO SMALL BUSINESS
CONCERNS
Section 1631--Goals for Procurement Contracts Awarded to Small Business
Concerns
This section would amend subsection (g) of section 15 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) by establishing a
Government-wide goal for participation by small business
concerns at not less than 25 percent of the total value of all
prime contracts for each fiscal year, and 40 percent of the
total value of all subcontract awards for each fiscal year.
This section would also require that agency goals related to
small business concerns cannot be less than Government-wide
goals.
Section 1632--Reporting on Goals For Procurement Contracts Awarded to
Small Business Concerns
This section would amend subsection (h) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) to clarify and expand the
reporting requirements related to procurement contracts awarded
to small businesses. The section would require the head of each
Federal agency to submit an annual report to the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration that describes the extent
of participation by small businesses and requires the head of
the agency to also provide the justification for the failure to
achieve the goals established in accordance with the Act. This
section would also require the Administrator to report to the
President and to Congress, not later than 60 days after
receiving such a report, the data provided by each head of
agency in a manner that would improve visibility of agency
performance related to small business goals and that would
enhance oversight of such activity.
Section 1633--Senior Executives
This section would require programs established for the
development of senior executives to include training in Federal
procurement requirements, including contracting requirements
under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644). This section
would also ensure that evaluation of members of the Senior
Executive Service (SES) responsible for acquisition, and other
senior officials responsible for acquisition and SES members,
as appropriate, include consideration of the agency's success
in achieving small business contracting goals.
PART III--MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM
Section 1641--Mentor-Protege Programs
This section would amend the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
644) by authorizing the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration to establish a mentor-protege program for small
business concerns. This section would also require the
Administrator to issue, subject to notice and comment,
regulations with respect to mentor-proteges programs at
agencies other than the Department of Defense. The section
would not apply to the Department of Defense mentor-proteges
program or any mentoring assistance provided under a Small
Business Innovation Research program or a Small Business
Technology Transfer program.
Section 1642--Government Accountability Office Report
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a study examining the potential
affiliation between mentors and proteges and to update the
study required by section 1345 of the Small Business Jobs Act
of 2010 (Public Law 111-240).
PART IV--TRANSPARENCY IN SUBCONTRACTING
Subpart A--Limitations on Subcontracting
Section 1651--Limitations on Subcontracting
This section would amend the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
631) by changing the limitations on subcontracting by small
business concerns from cost to price and by allowing, in case
of a contract that combines services, construction or supplies,
the limitation on subcontracting to be determined by the
category that is the greatest percentage of the contract
amount. This section would also require that amounts expended
by a covered small business concern on a subcontractor that is
a similarly situated entity shall not be used in the
determination of the subcontracting limitations.
Section 1652--Penalties
This section would amend section 16 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 645) by establishing penalties for anyone who
violates the subcontracting limitations established in section
45 of that Act.
Section 1653--Conforming Amendments
This section would make conforming amendments to the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632, 637, and 644).
Section 1654--Regulations
This section would require the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to issue guidance with respect to
compliance with the changes made to the Small Business Act by
the amendments in this part no later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Subpart B--Subcontracting Plans
Section 1655--Subcontracting Plans
This section would amend subsection (d) of section 8 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) to require an offeror or
bidder responding to a Federal solicitation to submit a
subcontracting report every 6 months during contract
performance, an annual report during performance and a summary
report within 30 days of the end of the contract. This section
would also provide authority for a Procurement Center
Representative (PCR) to determine if the subcontracting plan
fails to provide the maximum practicable opportunity for small
business concerns to participate and, allows the PCR to delay
acceptance of the subcontracting plan for up to 30 days in that
case. However, this section would provide an exception if the
appropriate personnel of the contracting agency certify that
the agency's need for the property or services is of such an
unusual and compelling urgency that the United States would be
seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to accept the
subcontracting plan. Furthermore, this section would not
provide a Procurement Center Representative the authority to
delay the award or performance of a Department of Defense
contract.
Section 1656--Notices of Subcontracting Opportunities
This section would amend subsection (k) of section 8 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) by requiring notices of
small business contracting opportunities to be posted on an
appropriate Federal website as determined by the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration.
Section 1657--Regulations
This section would require the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to issue guidance with respect to
changes made to the Small Business Act by amendments made in
this Act, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subpart C--Publication of Certain Documents
Section 1658--Publication of Certain Documents
This section would amend the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
631) by requiring a Federal agency, other than the Department
of Defense, to convert a function of a small business concern
to a performance by a Federal employee only after the agency
has made publicly available the procedures and methodologies
for determining which contracts will be studied for potential
conversion, procedures and methodologies to evaluate contracts
for inherently governmental or critical functions, and
procedures and methodologies for estimating and comparing
costs.
PART V--SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN SIZE STANDARDS
Section 1661--Small Business Concern Size Standards
This section would amend section 3 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632) to allow common size standards among
related industries only if the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration finds that the common size standard is
appropriate for each industry independently. This section would
also prohibit the Administrator from limiting the number of
size standards, and would require the Administrator to assign
the appropriate size standard to each North American Industrial
Classification System Code. Furthermore, this section would
require the Administrator to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking and include a detailed description of the industry,
analysis of the competitive environment for that industry, the
methodology used by to develop the proposed size standard, and
the anticipated effect of the proposed size standard in such
notice.
PART VI--CONTRACT BUNDLING
Section 1671--Consolidation of Provisions Relating To Contract Bundling
This section would amend section 44 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 657q) by expanding and clarifying the definition
of a bundled contract and eliminating procedures related to
contract consolidation. This section would exclude contracts
under $2.0 million dollars generally, or contracts under $5.0
million for construction, from the definition of a bundled
contract. This section would also exclude contracts for major
defense acquisition programs.
Section 1672--Repeal of Redundant Provisions
This section would repeal redundant provisions contained in
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(a, e, p, q)) as a result
of other actions taken in this Act.
Section 1673--Technical Amendments
This section would make technical amendments to section 15
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644).
PART VII--INCREASED PENALTIES FOR FRAUD
Section 1681--Safe Harbor for Good Faith Compliance Efforts
This section would amend subsection (d) of section 16 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 645) by clarifying that a
firm or individual will not be held liable if acting in
reliance on a written advisory opinion from outside counsel.
This section is intended to allow the firm or individual to
establish that they acted in good faith in attempting to comply
with current laws related to small business concerns. The
committee believes this provision is necessary in order to aid
firms or individuals who may not have absolute certainty as to
whether or not they are considered a small business and are
fully intending to comply with law. The committee also
recommends a provision elsewhere in this title that establishes
an Office of Hearings and Appeals, which would adjudicate
matters related to firms accused of misrepresenting themselves
as small businesses.
Section 1682--Office of Hearings and Appeals
This section would amend section 5 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 634) to codify the existence of the Office of
Hearing and Appeals within the Small Business Administration,
which adjudicates matters related to firms accused of
misrepresenting themselves as small businesses. This section
would also require the designation of a Chief Hearing Officer
and describe the qualifications and duties of such office.
Section 1683--Requirement Fraudulent Businesses Be Suspended or
Debarred
This section would amend subsection (d) of section 15 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) by clarifying that
misrepresentation as a small business concern is an independent
basis for suspension or debarment of a contractor. This section
would also require a revision to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation and would require the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to develop and promulgate guidance
implementing this section, and to publish standard operating
procedures for suspension and debarment on its website.
Section 1684--Annual Report on Suspensions and Debarments Proposed by
Small Business Administration
This section would require the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to submit an annual report to the
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the
House Committee on Small Business on the suspension and
debarment actions taken by the Administrator during the year
preceding the year of submission of this report.
PART VIII--OFFICES OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UNITS
Section 1691--Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
This section would amend subsection (k) of section 15 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) to ensure that an
individual serving as the Director of an Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) be a member of the
Senior Executive Service, or in the case of an agency where the
Chief Acquisition Officer and senior procurement executives are
not members of the Senior Executive Service, the Director may
be appointed to a position compensated at not less than the
minimum rate of pay for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
This section would also require that the head or deputy head of
the agency conduct the performance appraisal for the Director
of an OSDBU. Furthermore, this section amends subsection (k) by
including additional requirements for the Director of an OSDBU
and specifies minimum experience for an individual to be
selected as a Director.
Section 1692--Small Business Procurement Advisory Council
This section would amend section 7104(b) of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 644 ) by
requiring the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council to
conduct reviews of each Office of Small and Disadvantage
Business Utilization and to identify best practices for
maximizing small business utilization in Federal contracting.
PART IX--OTHER MATTERS
Section 1695--Surety Bonds
This section would amend section 694b of title 15, United
States Code, by raising the maximum surety bond amount from
$2.0 million to $6.5 million. This section would also allow the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to guarantee
a surety bond of up to $10.0 million if a contracting officer
of a Federal agency certifies that such a guarantee is
necessary. The committee is aware that many contracts awarded
by the Department of Defense are suitable for small business
performance, but may exceed the proposed $6.5 million threshold
for bonding. The committee believes that providing authority
for the Administrator to guarantee a surety bond of up to $10.0
million in certain cases may increase small business
contracting opportunities with the Department of Defense.
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 2013. As recommended by the committee,
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$10,838,192,000 for construction in support of the active
forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2013.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $9,095,836,000 for
military construction, $476,093,000 for Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $1,650,781,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends
authorization of $8,838,015,000 for military construction,
$349,396,000 for BRAC activities and $1,650,781,000 for family
housing in fiscal year 2013.
Section 2001--Short Title
This section would cite division B of this Act as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013.''
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 XXVII and XXIX shall expire on October 1,
2015, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2016, whichever is later.
Section 2003--Effective Date
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII and XXIX of this Act take effect on
October 1, 2012, or the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,923,323,000 for Army
military construction and $534,692,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,923,323,000 for military construction and $534,692,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
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 2013. 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
2013.
Section 2103--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 2104--Modification of Authority 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 Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
provision was included in the President's request.
Section 2105--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2009
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later.
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2010
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later.
Section 2107--Extension of Limitation on Obligation or Expenditure of
Funds for Tour Normalization
This section would continue a tour normalization
prohibition of funds included in section 2111 of the Military
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public Law
112-81). This section would specifically limit additional tour
normalization in the United States Forces Korea area of
responsibility until certain conditions are met. These
conditions include an analysis of alternatives and a tour
normalization master plan. Finally, a specific authorization is
required for an expenditure of funds to support tour
normalization.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,701,985,000 for Navy
military construction and $480,412,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,549,164,000 for military construction and $480,412,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
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 2013. 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
2013.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2013.
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.
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Project
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. 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, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2010
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $388,200,000 for Air Force
military construction and $581,653,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of
$388,200,000 for military construction and $581,653,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
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 2013. 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 2013.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2013.
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--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2010
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,654,623,000 for defense
agency military construction and $54,024,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,569,623,000 for military construction and $54,024,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2013.
The budget request also contained $151,000,000 for chemical
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends
authorization of $151,000,000 for chemical demilitarization
construction for fiscal year 2013.
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) $10,000,000 for Contingency Construction. The
budget request included $10,000,000 to support
contingency construction requirements in support of
projects not previously authorized by law. The
committee notes that significant unobligated balances
remain in this account and other authorities exist to
construct projects that are in keeping with a national
security interest. Accordingly, the committee
recommends $-0-, a reduction of $10,000,000, to support
this program.
(2) $75,000,000 for the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense
System Complex at Deveselu, Romania. 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.
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 2013. 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--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) and authorize the
Secretary of Defense to make certain modifications to the scope
of previously authorized construction projects. This provision
was included in the President's request.
The committee remains committed to completing the
construction associated with the Landstuhl Army Medical Center,
Germany, but remains concerned that the proposed facility scope
of the medical center may not be aligned with the future force
structure in Europe and U.S. Central Command. The committee
supports an increase in the overall scope of the medical center
but has not received adequate justification to approve the full
authorization of the medical center as proposed in the
President's budget request.
Section 2405--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2010
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
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.
Section 2412--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 1997 Project
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201) and authorize the
Secretary of Defense to make certain modifications to the scope
of a previously authorized construction project. This provision
was included in the President's request.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $254,163,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of
$254,163,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2013.
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 $1,022,542,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2013. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,022,542,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2013.
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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013. 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 2013. 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--Other Matters
Section 2611--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of previously authorized construction projects. This
provision was included in the President's request.
Section 2612--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2011 Project
This section would modify the authority provided in section
2601 of 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 to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
provision was included in the President's request.
Section 2613--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2009
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
Section 2614--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2010
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2013, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2014, whichever is later. This provision was included in the
President's request.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $349,396,000 for activities
related to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities
and $126,697,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The
committee recommends authorization of $349,396,000 for prior
BRAC activities and $126,697,000 for BRAC 2005 activities. The
committee notes that significant unobligated balances exist
within the BRAC 2005 account and have decided to include a
prior year savings line item that would fully fund the BRAC
2005 budget request for fiscal year 2013.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
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--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 2013 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.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 2711--Consolidation of Department of Defense Base Closure
Accounts and Authorized Uses of Base Closure Account Funds
This section would strike sections 2906 and 2906A of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101-510) that establish Treasury
accounts for the Base Closure and Realignment rounds of 1991,
1993, 1995, and 2005, and would unify these Treasury accounts
into a single Treasury account known as the ``Department of
Defense Base Closure Account''.
Section 2712--Air Armament Center, Eglin Air Force Base
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to retain an Air Armament Center at Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida. While the Base Closure and Realignment 2005 process
validated the necessity to support an Air Armament Center, the
Air Force proposed to reorganize the command within the Air
Force Material Command. As validated by the Secretary of the
Air Force in testimony before the committee this year, this
section would maintain an Air Armament Center in Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida, until it is modified pursuant to section
2687 of title 10, United States Code, or a subsequent law
providing for additional base closures.
Section 2713--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Round
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act from being used to propose, plan for,
or execute an additional BRAC round.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Alternative Financing Instruments
The committee is concerned that the process to determine
costs and savings from future basing decisions may overlook
costs that should be taken into consideration. Specifically,
the Department of Defense has effectively leveraged private
capital to improve military family housing through the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative; promote renewable energy use
on installations through Energy Savings Performance Contracts,
Utility Energy Service Contracts, guaranteed loans from the
Department of Energy, and other alternative financing vehicles;
developed unused installation property for consideration from
private developers through the Enhanced Use Leasing Program;
and improved Army lodging through the Privatization of Army
Lodging program. At the same time, a future basing decision
could lead to a closure of an installation before the
associated ground leases or other contractual arrangements
between the government and the developer have been satisfied.
Thus, the long-term contractual obligations may affect future
basing decisions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to determine the impact of base closures on
alternatively financed projects and to provide a report of the
findings to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2013. At a minimum, the Comptroller General's study should
assess the following:
(1) What alternatively financed projects exist on
military installations in the United States and what
contractual obligations related to contract or ground
lease termination or loan guarantees exist in these
contracts, leases, or loans;
(2) How the Department of Defense ensures that the
U.S. Government's interests are protected in addressing
contract or ground lease termination, or loan
guarantees;
(3) To what extent the Department of Defense's
process for estimating costs and savings from candidate
basing modifications capture any termination liability
that the U.S. Government could incur from these
contractual obligations; and
(4) The Comptroller General should add such
additional questions as deemed relevant to complete
this study.
Alternative Site Assessment for the Broadway Complex, San Diego,
California
The committee is aware of the legal and regulatory
challenges faced by the Department of the Navy in executing
lease No. N6247307RP07P24, redevelopment of the Broadway
Complex in San Diego, California. Even with these challenges,
the committee is concerned that the Navy has been unable to
move forward with the construction of a new Government
Administrative Facility (GAF) nearly 6 years after entering
into a long-term lease to develop the existing site. The
committee is also troubled that project delays are requiring
the Navy to expend funds to maintain the current Broadway
Complex 3 years after the new GAF was originally scheduled for
completion.
Given the delays and unanticipated maintenance costs
associated with this lease, the committee believes the Navy
should consider relocating the GAF to a military facility in
the San Diego metropolitan area. While the committee is aware
that the Navy faces land use restraints that could make this
option impractical, insufficient data exists to make such a
determination. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to prepare a report and submit it to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2013. Such a
report should include a land availability study of Department
of the Navy property located on a military installation in the
San Diego metropolitan area to determine if sufficient land is
available, or could be made available, to construct a GAF that
meets Department of the Navy requirements. This report should
also include a cost assessment to compare the various
alternatives with the existing lease.
Army Energy Initiatives Task Force
The committee recognizes the work the Army Energy
Initiative Task Force has undertaken to improve and expand
opportunities with the private sector to execute large scale
renewable energy projects on Army bases. The committee
encourages the Energy Initiative Task Force to also consider
alternative energy efficiency and other sustainability
proposals that could also assist the Army in meeting its energy
goals.
Briefing on Alternative Power Applications on Military Installations
The committee recognizes that there may be merit to the
development of small modular reactors (SMR), that produce under
300 Megawatts, to support the electricity consumption on
military installations. The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA)
report, entitled Feasibility of Nuclear Power on US Military
Installations, indicated that an SMR could be a viable option
for a military installation provided the Department does not
assume First Of a Kind (FOAK) expenses. If the Department was
required or assumed FOAK expenses SMR was not determined to be
a viable option for military installations. The committee is
interested, however, in the Department's assessment of the CNA
report, and whether the Department has assessed the
practicality of partnering with interested parties that would
undertake the FOAK expenses in order to assess the viability of
SMR on a military installation. The committee, therefore,
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee
on Armed Services by December 31, 2012, on any actions the
Department has undertaken to date on this issue. If action has
been taken to move forward on the deployment of SMR, the
briefing should include the current and potential budget for
such an undertaking, including any personnel costs associated
with such projects, a timeline for the proposed projects, a
plan for storing the resulting nuclear waste, if necessary, the
additional security requirement that may be required, and any
other factors that are pertinent to the successful execution of
establishing a SMR on a military installation.
Briefing on Direct Solar and other Energy Efficient Technologies
Applications on Military Installations
The committee recognizes direct solar as one technology
available to reduce Department of Defense energy consumption
and enhance energy security on military installations. The
committee also recognizes that direct solar devices such as
daylighting systems and direct solar pipe technology can have
broader application across military installations and may
reduce demand load while providing light for facilities. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, direct solar
was listed as one of several possible technologies for the
Department of Defense to consider jointly with Department of
Energy when generating its list of energy efficient
technologies. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary
of Energy in consultation with the Secretary of Defense to
brief the congressional defense committees no later than
December 31, 2012 about existing projects where direct solar
devices as well as other energy efficiency technologies listed
in the Energy Performance Master Plan have been employed across
military installations. The briefing shall include a
description of the most promising technologies, the savings
achieved, and details regarding the impact of such technologies
on the Department of Defense efforts to meet its energy goals
and mandates.
Building Conversions
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
contemplating facility standards to support sustainable design
features and has generally adopted Leadership in Energy and
Environment Design (LEED) standards to meet these requirements.
The committee supports sustainable design and building reuse
standards that value existing and historic facilities as
integral elements of the overall installation. The committee
believes that the adoption of sustainable design and building
reuse standards concurrently reduces the one time construction
and renovation costs. For example, the Department of the Army
has indicated their intent to reuse an existing building at
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and upgrade the facility for
the purpose of conducting high performance computing. The
committees urges the Secretary of Defense to adopt a
comprehensive set of sustainable design and reuse standards
that values building reuse and provides facility savings.
Decentralized Steam Generation
In fiscal year 2013, the committee recommends authorization
of over $180.0 million in military construction projects to
support rapid energy savings in decentralizing steam utilities
at three locations. In addition to the quick payback period,
these investments are expected to reduce steam lost in the
transmission lines and provide a more reliable utility. While
the Department of Defense has proposed additional energy
projects in the budget request for fiscal year 2013, the
Department has elected to not prioritize any further
decentralized steam systems. The committee supports investments
in projects that provide a rapid return on investment and
believes the payback period associated with these facilities
makes them ideal candidates for future military construction
projects.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2013,
on the current inventory of centralized steam systems. The
briefing should include an assessment of the costs to
decentralize these steam systems, the payback associated with
decentralizing these assets, the current locations of
decentralized steam systems, the potential location of
additional decentralized steam systems, and funding options
available to support these decentralized efforts.
Department of Defense Energy Demonstration and Validation
The committee recognizes the services' efforts to reduce
energy consumption, increase use of renewable energy, conserve
water and utilize sustainability building practices for new
construction, and implement energy efficiency initiatives. In
this resource constrained environment, the committee commends
the services' for their efforts to ensure that energy
demonstration and validation programs continue to demonstrate
an acceptable return on investment. The committee urges the
services to continue their efforts to transition demonstration
and validation energy programs into operational and
installation initiatives and ensure there continues to be a
sufficient payback.
Departments of Defense and Energy Collaboration and Technology
Transition
The committee notes that in July 2010, the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to encourage innovative energy and
conservation technologies, from research and development to end
user applications within the Department of Defense. The
committee commends both agencies for working together to
maximize both of their technical expertise in emerging energy
technology. The committee is aware that the Department of
Energy has made significant investment in the development of
alternative energy sources, and the committee urges the
Department of Defense to leverage those investments in its
alternative energy initiatives. The committee is also aware
that the Department of Defense's Environmental Security and
Technology Certification program funds an installation energy
test bed to demonstrate energy efficiencies and renewable
energy technologies to validate performance, cost, and
environmental impacts, and to determine which technologies
would be applicable for broader application across the
Department of Defense's inventory of installations. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees by October 31,
2012, on the current status of activities under the MOU,
details regarding the installation energy technology selection
process, the list of companies and technologies that received
awards in fiscal years 2011-12, a description of how the
technologies were transitioned, and the installations where
they were employed.
Department of Defense Energy Technologies
The committee is aware of efforts by the Department of
Defense to reduce energy consumption and improve energy
efficiency. The committee is aware of a variety of
technologies, to include waste-to-energy systems and other new
technologies, which can help the Department meet its energy
goals and mandates. The committee encourages the Department to
leverage these technologies where appropriate and continue its
efforts to improve operational and installation energy
programs.
Facility Demolition Program
The budget request contained $125.0 million for the
facilities demolition program for fiscal year 2013. The
committee believes that the effective use of demolition
appropriations provides long-term savings to the Department of
Defense by decreasing facility sustainment costs and reducing
additional environmental liability. Therefore, the committee
supports the overall facility demolition budget request and
encourages the Department to better assess future demolition
requirements. The committee also supports appropriately
assessing the budget request to remove the entirety of excess
and obsolete facilities through the judicious use of the
facilities demolition program.
Inclusion of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Energy Security
The committee recognizes the importance of energy security
on military installations to ensure access to reliable supplies
of energy sufficient to meet mission essential requirements.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) required the Secretary of Defense to
establish a policy for military installations to include
favorable consideration for energy security in the design and
development of energy projects on military installations using
renewable energy sources, and to provide guidance to commanders
in order to minimize the effects of a disruption of services by
a utility. The committee believes that energy security projects
are vital to the operational requirements that support national
security. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that any installation energy project that
excludes energy security in its design due to excessive costs
provide details of the factors used to value energy security
within the required cost-benefit analysis.
Increased Utilization of Third Party Financing for Energy Efficiency
Projects
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
very aggressive goals and mandates to reduce energy consumption
on military installations and to enhance energy security. A
critical component of this effort includes large-scale energy
efficiency and conservation efforts at military installations,
particularly through partnerships with the private sector. The
committee urges the Department and the service secretaries to
partner with third parties through energy savings performance
contracts, enhanced use leases, and other third party
authorities to achieve their goals, maximize savings, and
achieve a demonstrated return on these investments. The
committee also encourages the Department of Defense to consider
the best complement of technologies that provide energy
security to include consideration for those that provide
continuous power at a cost-competitive price.
Leasing Real Property
The committee is concerned that by using real property
leases as allowed under section 2667 of title 10, United States
Code, for the purchase of services being performed on non-
excess Department of Defense land, the Department and the
military departments are bypassing the small-business
considerations provided for under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR). For example, the Department of the Navy has
sought to lease to public or private entities a portion of the
former Ship Repair Facility on non-excess real property at the
U.S. Naval Base Guam under the authority of section 2667. In
addition, the Navy's request for proposal states that it was
issued to ``competitively select a private sector ship repair
facility operator . . . The successful offeror should be
capable of operating as, or partnering with, a fully qualified
ship repair and overhaul enterprise.'' The committee urges the
Department and the military services to use appropriate
statutory and regulatory authorities when leasing real property
and to pursue contracted services through the FAR, and not via
leasing arrangements, so that proper consideration is given to
small business interests.
Local Communities' Capacity to Support Military Installation Change
The committee is concerned about the impact of Base Closure
and Realignment (BRAC), overseas rebasing, and force structure
changes on local communities surrounding installations affected
by these initiatives. The committee is concerned that some
communities affected by significant installation growth were
not as well prepared as others to ensure that adequate
transportation infrastructure, schools, utilities services, and
housing were available when needed to support installation
growth. The committee notes that some communities that coped
relatively well with the growth may have implemented strategies
that, if adopted, might benefit other communities experiencing
similar installation growth in the future. The committee also
notes that many communities have been affected by the closure
of about 100 major installations through 5 BRAC rounds
authorized and carried out between 1988 and 2011. The committee
is aware that the Government Accountability Office has issued a
series of reports since 2004 on such issues as to how
communities fared after the first four BRAC rounds, how
effectively the Army communicated growth plans at its
installations with local communities, the main challenges in
coping with local installation growth, and the Department of
Defense's Defense Access Roads program. Coping with growth is
particularly important because the ability of the installation
to meet mission requirements can be affected by overburdened
transportation and utilities networks.
Now that the Department of Defense has completed its fifth
BRAC round and the potential exists for future infrastructure,
force structure, and installation mission changes, local
communities may once again have to manage potentially
significant installation change. Communities that encounter
such changes in the future could benefit from lessons learned
from those communities that coped relatively well with such
change. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to study the practices and
strategies that local communities and States used to cope with
such changes, and to prepare and submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2013. At a
minimum, the Comptroller General's report should address the
following:
(1) The best practices that communities or states
relied on to cope with installation growth,
installation closure, or mission changes and how could
those practices be replicated by similarly situated
communities in the future;
(2) Opportunities that exist to share best practices
to cope with installation change that were successfully
implemented by communities or States;
(3) The extent to which local communities' or states'
economies recover from the closure of a major military
installation in any of the five BRAC rounds conducted
through 2011; and
(4) Any such additional questions that the
Comptroller General deems relevant to this study.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Preparation of Military Installation Master Plans
This section would require installation master plans at a
period not to exceed 10 years. Such plans shall address
environmental planning, sustainable design and development,
sustainable range planning, real property master planning, and
transportation planning.
Section 2802--Sustainment Oversight and Accountability for Military
Housing Privatization Projects and Related Annual Reporting
Requirements
This section would provide additional oversight and
accountability in the pursuit of military housing privatization
projects to include an assessment of the financial viability of
the long-term project, a resident satisfaction assessment and
an assessment of the backlog of maintenance and repair.
Furthermore, this section would delete several reporting
requirements that were duplicative or obsolete and replace them
with reporting requirements associated with the long-term
viability of the family housing projects.
Section 2803--One-Year Extension of Authority to Use Operation and
Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Outside the United States
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 operations and maintenance appropriations for military
construction purposes for the U.S. Central Command and Horn of
Africa area until September 30, 2013.
Section 2804--Treatment of Certain Defense Nuclear Facility
Construction Projects as Military Construction Projects
This section would make several findings regarding a May
2010 agreement between the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy regarding the transfer of Department of
Defense budget authority to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to fund activities the Secretary of
Defense determines to be high priorities.
This section would also mandate that certain construction
projects of the NNSA be deemed military construction projects
and require that such projects therefore be subject to: (1) the
advance-project authorization requirement of section 2802(a) of
title 10, United States Code, and other requirements of chapter
169 of such title related to military construction projects
carried out by the Secretary of Defense; and (2) annual acts
authorizing military construction projects (and authorizing the
appropriation of funds therefor) for a fiscal year. This
section would require that the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Building Replacement (CMRR) project, in Los Alamos,
New Mexico, the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project, in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and any nuclear facility of the NNSA
initiated on or after October 1, 2013 that is estimated to cost
more than $1.0 billion (and is intended to be primarily
utilized to support NNSA's nuclear weapons activities), be
treated as military construction projects. Further, this
section would authorize, as military construction, the CMRR
project in the amount of $3.5 billion and the UPF project in
the amount of $4.2 billion.
This section would specify that the Secretary of Energy
shall retain authority to regulate design and construction
activities for these projects, that the Secretary of Defense
must coordinate with the Administrator for Nuclear Security
regarding requirements for these facilities, and that the
Administrator must make available to the Secretary of Defense
the expertise of the NNSA to support design and construction
activities. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense, upon completion of these projects, to negotiate with
the Administrator to transfer the constructed facility to the
authority of the Administrator for operations.
This section would also express a sense of Congress that
during fiscal year 2014 and thereafter, the budgetary authority
provided by the Secretary of Defense to the Administrator under
the May 2010 agreement should be reduced by the amount needed
to fund design and construction of the CMRR and UPF projects
under the military construction authority established by this
section.
Finally, this section would apply to the designated
projects for fiscal year 2014 and thereafter, and require that
by September 30, 2013, the Administrator shall transfer to the
Secretary of Defense all information related to architectural
and engineering services and construction design for the CMRR
and UPF projects. This section would mandate that all
environmental impact statements and legal rulings in effect
before September 30, 2013 would remain valid upon transfer of
responsibility for the CMRR and UPF projects to the Secretary
of Defense.
Section 2805--Execution of Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building
Replacement Nuclear Facility and Limitation on Alternative Plutonium
Strategy
This section would state that it is the policy of the
United States to create and sustain the capability to produce
plutonium pits for nuclear weapons, and to ensure sufficient
plutonium pit production capacity to respond to technical
challenges in the existing nuclear weapons stockpile or
geopolitical developments. This section would also express a
sense of Congress that: (1) successful and timely construction
of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement
(CMRR) nuclear facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico, is critical
to achieving the aforementioned policy and that such facility
should achieve full operational capability by fiscal year 2024;
(2) prior-year funds provided for CMRR, up to $160.0 million
being available, should be applied to continue design and
construction of CMRR in fiscal year 2013; and (3) during fiscal
year 2014 and thereafter, the budgetary authority provided by
the Secretary of Defense to the Administrator for Nuclear
Security under a May 2010 memorandum of agreement between the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy should be
reduced by the amount needed to fund design and construction of
the CMRR under the military construction authorities provided
by section 2804 of this title.
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Administrator, to request such funds in
fiscal year 2014 and subsequent fiscal years under the military
construction authority provided by section 2804 to ensure the
CMRR facility achieves full operational capability by 2024.
Finally, this section would limit any funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or any other Act from being obligated
or expended on any activities associated with a plutonium
strategy for the National Nuclear Security Administration that
does not include achieving full operational capability of the
CMRR facility by fiscal year 2024.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Authority of Military Museums to Accept Gifts and
Services and To Enter Into Leases and Cooperative Agreements
This section would consolidate and extend available
authorities for the use by military museums. In addition to
providing the ability of military museums to accept services
and enter into cooperative agreements, this section would
maintain the military museums' ability to retain funds locally
that were developed as a result of out-leasing elements of the
military museum.
Section 2812--Clarification of Parties With Whom the Department of
Defense May Conduct Exchanges of Real Property at Certain Military
Installations
This section would amend section 2869(a)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 2815 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), to change the party with whom a real estate exchange can
be conducted.
Section 2813--Indemnification of Transferees of Property at Any Closed
Military Installation
This section would provide an indemnification for
properties transferred at all closed military installations
after October 24, 1988. This section would unify the
protections previously provided to properties closed pursuant
to a base closure process with those properties that were
closed pursuant to section 2687 of title 10, United States
Code.
Section 2814--Identification Requirement for Entry on Military
Installations
This section would establish minimum identification
requirements for military installation access.
Section 2815--Plan To Protect Critical Department of Defense Critical
Assets from Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees the Department's
plan to protect defense-related critical assets from the
adverse effects of electromagnetic pulse and high-powered
microwave weapons.
Subtitle C--Energy Security
Section 2821--Congressional Notification for Contracts for the
Provision and Operation of Energy Production Facilities Authorized To
Be Located on Real Property Under the Jurisdiction of a Military
Department
This section would require the Department of Defense to
notify Congress when entering into contracts for the provision
and operation of energy production facilities on real property
owned by the United States if the contract is longer than 20
years.
Section 2822--Continuation of Limitation on Use of Funds for Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold or Platinum
Certification and Expansion To Include Implementation of ASHRAE
Building Standard 189.1
This section would continue the prohibition on the use of
funds for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design gold or
platinum certifications for fiscal year 2013 set forth in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81). This section would also limit the use of funds for
implementation of ASHRAE building standard 189.1. The committee
remains concerned that the Department of Defense is investing
significant funding for more aggressive certifications without
demonstrating the appropriate return on investment. The
committee looks forward to receiving the Department's report
required in section 2830 of Public Law 112-81 by June 30, 2012.
Section 2823--Availability and Use of Department of Defense Energy Cost
Savings To Promote Energy Security
This section would amend section 2912(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to allow the Department of Defense to also
use the energy cost savings resulting from shared energy
savings contracts for energy security.
Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment
Section 2831--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 the territory of 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, 2020.
Section 2832--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 the territory of Guam until the Secretary of Defense
certifies that the firing range is required to meet a national
security need.
Section 2833--Repeal of Conditions on Use of Funds for Guam Realignment
This section would strike a requirement of section 2207 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81) to obtain a coordinated
Federal agency plan that supports the civilian infrastructure
on Guam, as well as a requirement in such Act to obtain
tangible progress regarding the relocation of Marine Corps Air
Station Futenma as a condition for moving forward with the
Marine Corps realignment of forces to Guam.
The committee has been informed by the Department of the
Navy that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Record of Decision is required for the beddown of Marines on
Guam. The Department of the Navy has also indicated that the
Federal agency efforts to mitigate the overall impact of the
proposed redevelopment will be completed in the Record of
Decision. The committee believes that the Record of Decision is
the correct forum to fully consider the impacts of the overall
realignment from a Federal agency perspective. Considering the
timing of the Record of Decision, the committee believes that
there are discrete elements of the overall realignment that
have independent utility and should move forward.
Subtitle E--Land Conveyances
Section 2841--Modification to Authorized Land Conveyance and Exchange,
Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska
This section would modify section 2851 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) and would change the lead agency
responsible for completing the land conveyance and exchange at
Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska, from the Secretary of
the Air Force to the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 2842--Modification of Financing Authority, Broadway Complex of
the Department of the Navy, San Diego, California
This section would modify section 2732 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (division B
of Public Law 99-661) to expand the Secretary of the Navy's
ability to use the proceeds from the Broadway Complex lease to
construct real property in San Diego, California.
Section 2843--Land Conveyance, John Kunkel Army Reserve Center, Warren,
Ohio
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, the John Kunkel Army Reserve
Center, Warren, Ohio to the Village of Lordstown for public
purposes.
Section 2844--Land Conveyance, Castner Range, Fort Bliss, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey the Castner Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, to the Parks and
Wildlife Department of the State of Texas for the purpose of
establishing an additional element of the Franklin Mountains
State Park.
Section 2845--Modification of Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas
This section would modify a land conveyance at Fort Hood,
Texas, that was provided in the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public
Law 108-375). Specifically, the Secretary of the Army would be
authorized to expand the development of Texas A&M University,
Central Texas, to include elements that the University System
of the State of Texas considers appropriate.
Section 2846--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Fort Lee
Military Reservation and Petersburg National Battlefield, Virginia
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army and
the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a land exchange for
1.170 acres of real property at the Fort Lee Military
Reservation, Virginia, and the Petersburg National Battlefield,
Virginia.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 2861--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 2862--Redesignation of the Center for Hemispheric Defense
Studies as the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
rename the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies as the
``William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies'' and
other conforming changes.
Section 2863--Sense of Congress Regarding Establishment of Military
Divers Memorial at Washington Navy Yard
This section would provide a sense of Congress that the
Navy should provide an appropriate site at the former Navy Dive
School at the Washington Navy Yard, District of Columbia, for a
Military Divers Memorial.
Section 2864--Gold Star Mothers National Monument, Arlington National
Cemetery
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
establish a Gold Star Mothers National Monument in Arlington
National Cemetery, Virginia, or on Federal lands that are under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army and are located
in the vicinity of Arlington National Cemetery.
Section 2865--Naming of Training and Support Complex, Fort Bragg, North
Carolina
This section would name the training and support complex at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the ``Colonel Robert Howard
Training and Support Complex''.
Section 2866--Naming of Electrochemistry Engineering Facility, Naval
Support Activity Crane, Crane, Indiana
This section would rename the electrochemistry engineering
facility on Naval Support Activity Crane, Crane, Indiana as the
``John Hostettler Electrochemistry Engineering Facility''.
Section 2867--Retention of Core Functions of the Electronic Systems
Center at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to retain the core functions of the Electronic Systems Center
at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, with the same
integrated mission elements, responsibilities, and capabilities
as existed as of November 1, 2011, until modified pursuant to
section 2687 of title 10, United States Code or a subsequent
BRAC authorization.
Section 2868--Retention of Core Functions of the Air Force Material
Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to retain the core functions of the Air Force Material Command
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, as existed as of
November 1, 2011, until modified pursuant to section 2687 of
title 10, United States Code or a subsequent BRAC
authorization.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $-0- for activities related to
Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction. The
committee believes that the Department should have included
several projects in this account and has moved these projects
from title XXII of the bill. The committee recommends
authorization of $150,768,000 for Overseas Contingency
Construction Operations Military Construction. The committee
notes that significant unobligated balances exist within the
Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction account
and have decided to include a prior year savings line item that
would fully fund this budget request for fiscal year 2013.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2901--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2013. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The list contained in this report is intended to be the binding
list of the specific projects authorized at each location.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contained $17.7
billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee
recommends $18.1 billion, an increase of $361.6 million to the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request contained $11.5 billion for the programs
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year
2013. The committee recommends $11.9 billion, an increase of
$401.6 million to the budget request.
Weapons Activities
Consideration and Incorporation of Surety Features in Life Extension
Programs
During each nuclear warhead life extension program
conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), designers and policymakers consider incorporating
enhanced safety and security features into the life extended
weapons. The committee encourages the NNSA, the Department of
Defense, and the Nuclear Weapons Council to ensure that cost-
effective improvements to safety and security (or, ``surety'')
that do not jeopardize reliability margins are an important
consideration in all life extension programs. The committee
expects designers and policymakers to carefully evaluate safety
and security weaknesses, technologies or other enhancements
available to eliminate or mitigate those weaknesses, and the
costs and benefits of such enhancements during the life
extension program and throughout the lifecycle of the weapon.
Directed Stockpile Work and Life Extension Program
The budget request contained $2.1 billion for all Directed
Stockpile Work (DSW). DSW supports a variety of activities
related to stockpile management and stockpile stewardship,
including life extension programs, stockpile surveillance and
sustainment, testing and experiments, component manufacturing,
and weapons dismantlement and disposition.
Within DSW, the budget request contained $543.9 million for
life extension programs (LEP)--$369.0 million for the B61 LEP
and $174.9 million for the W76 LEP. The budget request would
delay the B61 LEP by two years, with a first production unit
delivered in fiscal year 2019, and slow the production rate for
the W76 LEP. The budget request would also slow the Phase 6.1
life extension study for the W78.
The committee recommends $2.3 billion for DSW, an increase
of $219.0 million to the budget request. This includes $690.9
million for LEPs and $607.4 million for stockpile systems to
return to previous schedules and reduce risk in the B61 LEP,
W76 LEP, and W78 life extension study. Finally, this includes
$957.7 million for stockpile services to improve capabilities
that support the entire stockpile, in particular research and
development in support of stockpile certification and safety
and plutonium sustainment activities.
Ignition and Support of Other Stockpile Programs
Achieving fusion ignition in a laboratory environment has
been a key goal of the Department of Energy's (DOE) stockpile
stewardship and nuclear energy programs since the early 1990s
when the ignition mission was first identified by the DOE
Fusion Policy Advisory Committee and the National Academy of
Sciences Inertial Fusion Review Group. In the mid-2000s, the
National Ignition Campaign (NIC) was developed to outline a
path for using research facilities such as Sandia National
Laboratories' Z-machine and OMEGA at the University of
Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics to inform eventual
ignition experiments at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory's National Ignition Facility (NIF). The experimental
schedule in the June 2005 NIC Execution Plan showed an
aggressive timeline for beginning integrated ignition
experiments in fiscal year 2010.
Once fully operational in 2009, NIF scientists encountered
several technical challenges that have slowed progress towards
achieving ignition. By early 2012, several of these technical
challenges have been resolved, but the remaining challenges and
gaps in understanding remain significant. With the NIC
scheduled to conclude in fiscal year 2012, NIC scientists and
managers have significantly increased the rate at which NIF
experiments are conducted in an attempt to achieve ignition
before the end of the fiscal year in September 2012.
The committee understands that achieving self-sustained
thermonuclear fusion in a laboratory setting is a difficult
undertaking and believes that achieving ignition at NIF would
be a tremendously valuable and historic accomplishment.
However, the committee is concerned that, should ignition not
be achieved by the end of fiscal year 2012, the fiscal year
2013 budget request would continue an aggressive pace for
ignition experiments at NIF even though the NIC itself will be
concluded. The budget request for fiscal year 2013 contains
$84.2 million for ignition experiments. The committee believes
that, should ignition not be achieved, the scientists and
managers associated with NIC should slow the ignition
experimental schedule, take stock of the ignition-related
experiments to date, thoroughly evaluate the remaining
technical challenges and gaps in understanding, and seek to
fully incorporate experimental data into computer models to
enable better prediction of experimental results. The committee
believes that, during this time, the NIF should increase its
non-ignition high-energy density physics experiments in direct
support of near-term stockpile stewardship needs. The committee
therefore recommends $54.2 million for the ignition subprogram,
a decrease of $30.0 million to the budget request, and $34.8
million for Support of Other Stockpile Programs, an increase of
$20.0 million to the budget request.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a
provision limiting the availability of funds for ignition
research and experiments until the Administrator for Nuclear
Security certifies that fusion ignition has been achieved at
the NIF or the Administrator submits a report to the
congressional defense committees. The committee also believes
that in a time of budget austerity, the top priority of the
Administrator must be the achievement of the warhead life
extension program goals and timelines that support military
requirements.
Prioritization of Resources and Programs
The committee views execution of the stockpile stewardship
program as the paramount component of the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) broad nuclear security
mission. This program uses data from previous nuclear
explosives tests, unique experimental tools, advanced
simulation and computing capabilities, and the world's foremost
scientists, engineers, and technicians to assess, certify, and
sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile without additional
nuclear explosive testing. The committee notes that continually
improving scientific understanding of how nuclear weapons
function and age is critical to this effort.
The committee believes that the nuclear security
enterprise's core mission is in the process of transitioning
from a focus, in the past two decades, largely on developing
new tools and capabilities to a focus on applying those tools
and capabilities in direct support of stockpile. After
evaluating the NNSA's stockpile work-plan, the committee
recognizes that in the next two decades the levels of effort
and funding required to complete direct stockpile sustainment
work, such as life extension programs, will be considerable.
The committee believes a prioritization of near-term
deliverables and programs that are in direct support of
Department of Defense stockpile requirements is needed, while
still maintaining sufficient investment to continue advancing
scientific understanding and capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends various alterations to
the budget request for NNSA Weapons Activities, as reflected in
the accompanying tables. In particular, the committee
recommends $2.3 billion for Directed Stockpile Work, an
increase of $219.0 million, to provide increased support to
near-term deliverables. The committee also recommends $395.6
million for the Science Campaign, an increase of $45.5 million
to the budget request, to support increased hydrodynamic
experiments under the Advanced Certification account. The
committee further recommends $167.1 million for the Engineering
Campaign, an increase of $16.5 million to the budget request,
to support Enhanced Surveillance and Enhanced Surety efforts.
The committee expects these increases to be utilized for
efforts focused on near-term challenges directly related to the
stockpile. To focus resources on near-term efforts in Directed
Stockpile Work and other campaigns, the committee recommends
$570.0 million for the Advanced Simulation and Computing
Campaign, a decrease of $30.0 million to the budget request.
Finally, the committee recommends $72.6 million for Site
Stewardship, a decrease of $17.4 million to the budget request.
This reduction would eliminate funding for the Project
Management Standardization program, which the committee
believes is antithetical to the governance reforms recommended
elsewhere in this title. This reduction would also eliminate
funding for the Energy Modernization and Investment Program,
funding which the committee believes would show slow return on
investment and would be better spent on immediate stockpile
sustainment needs.
Work for Others at the Nuclear Security Laboratories
The committee has long understood that the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) laboratories provide unique and
invaluable expertise to other federal government agencies
through the Work For Others (WFO) program. In its February 2012
Phase 1 report on the quality of science and engineering at the
NNSA laboratories, the National Academies of Science said,
``Work for Others at the three national security laboratories
benefits the nation in two ways. It produces valuable research
and technology for the national security efforts of the
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and for the
Intelligence Community; and it provides a mechanism to help
sustain some of the people and capabilities for the nuclear
weapon program. It also strengthens the laboratories' broad
science and engineering capabilities.'' The committee agrees
with the National Academies' assessment, and believes the WFO
program has broad benefits to the laboratories' core mission of
nuclear weapons and to wider national security challenges. The
committee encourages the NNSA and other government agencies to
fully support the laboratories' transition from narrowly
focused nuclear weapons labs to broader-based nuclear security
labs. The committee recognizes that the NNSA labs contribute
broadly to homeland security missions, warfighter support, and
the intelligence community, and believe the labs' unique
expertise must be leveraged for these national security
missions.
In July 2010, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director
of National Intelligence signed the ``Governance Charter for an
Interagency Council on the Strategic Capability of DOE National
Laboratories as National Security Assets,'' which provides a
framework for the four agencies to coordinate on shared, long-
term planning for capabilities at the NNSA labs that can be
applied to strategic national security challenges in each
agency. The committee believes this governance charter is a
step in the right direction, but encourages the Secretaries and
the Director to take additional actions to provide a forcing
function behind the agreement. Further, the committee is
concerned that this governance charter does not address cost-
sharing or long-term institutional support of the NNSA
laboratory capabilities by these other agencies. As the
National Academies report points out, ``These other agencies
are exploiting the infrastructure that has resulted from NNSA's
investment, and are by and large not contributing directly to
the building and maintenance of that infrastructure.'' The
committee believes the National Academies report is correct in
saying, ``The four-agency agreement does not solve the long-
term problems of resources and institutional support, but it is
a good beginning that provides a structure within which a
solution may be reached.''
Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends a section
that would strengthen WFO at the NNSA labs by creating
streamlined processes, procedures, and regulations for
approving and conducting WFO projects; a section that would
codify and provide congressional direction to the Interagency
Council; and a section that would exempt the DOE from statutory
requirements currently hindering WFO from the Department of
Defense.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Adopting the Gold Standard for Section 123 Agreements
The committee supports agreements made in accordance with
section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-
703) and that include ``the Gold Standard'' commitment, as
exemplified by the nuclear cooperation agreement between the
United States and the United Arab Emirates. The Gold Standard
represents a binding legal restriction on uranium enrichment
and reprocessing as a condition for concluding nuclear
cooperation agreements. If the commitment is broken, the United
States has grounds to terminate the agreement.
The committee is now concerned that the Administration may
not require ``the Gold Standard'' in upcoming 123 agreements.
The committee believes this would weaken United States
nonproliferation efforts and leverage to limit the potential
spread of uranium enrichment and reprocessed spent nuclear
fuel. The committee understands that the enrichment of uranium
and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel can be used for both
peaceful and military purposes, and to produce stockpiles of
fissile material. The resulting increase of fissile material
could be used by a state to make nuclear weapons or could be
stolen by terrorists. To preclude such a scenario, the
committee believes the Gold Standard represents an important
legally binding commitment by a foreign country to not enrich
uranium or reprocess plutonium and to open its nuclear sites to
international inspections.
Assessment of Location and Vulnerability of Highly-Enriched Uranium
The committee reaffirms the importance of continuing to
assess the location and vulnerability to theft or diversion of
known stocks of highly-enriched uranium worldwide. In
particular, the committee notes section 3122 (c)(2) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) which required the Secretary of Energy to submit a
list, by country and site, reflecting the total amount of known
highly-enriched uranium around the world, and an assessment of
the vulnerability of such uranium to theft or diversion. The
committee directs the Secretary of Energy to include, as part
of this required annual assessment, a vulnerability assessment
including: a letter grade noting how vulnerable the material
is; a brief description of the site's security; a brief
description of what actions, if any, have been undertaken to
improve the security of the site; and a brief description of
what challenges or gaps remain.
Conversion of Research Reactors
The committee commends the Administrator for National
Nuclear Security for the progress made by the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative and related National Nuclear Security
Administration nonproliferation programs on converting
additional research reactors to use low-enriched uranium (LEU)
instead of highly-enriched uranium. Using LEU reduces the
continued use of nuclear weapons-grade material that may be
vulnerable to diversion or theft. This program remains crucial
to reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism. In particular, the
committee is encouraged that the United States and the Russian
Federation agreed in 2010 to conduct feasibility studies to
convert six Russian research reactors, and notes that the
studies for converting four research reactors have been
recently completed. The committee further notes that work is
now proceeding to begin conversion activities on two reactors,
including regulatory analyses, procurement of LEU fuel, and
facility modifications. This progress in cooperation on
starting the conversion of Russian reactors represents a
significant step following years of reluctance by Russia to
discuss conversion of its research reactors.
Global Security Through Science Partnership Programs
The committee notes the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) assessed the Global Initiative for
Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) program and did not recommend
phasing out the program in the Russian Federation and the
countries of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR). The committee is concerned about the continued funding
for the GIPP program and that the NNSA decided to broaden the
GIPP circles of engagement to states outside of the former
USSR. The committee notes the NNSA commissioned a report,
published in October 2010, which recommended transforming the
GIPP and seeking congressional authorization to allow the
proposed program changes. The committee is aware that the NNSA
submitted a report to the congressional defense committees, as
required by the conference report (H. Conf. Rept. 112-331)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, renaming the GIPP program to the ``Global Security
through Science Partnerships'' program. The committee is
concerned that the report included a five year budget plan,
with plans to budget $15.6 million for fiscal year 2013 and
proposed funding of $70.4 million from fiscal year 2014-17. The
committee is also concerned that the Department of Energy has
not justified to the appropriate congressional committees the
continuing need for the GIPP program or performance metrics for
meeting objectives and phasing out the program. The committee
believes the program achieved measured success in Russia and
the former USSR, but that it is time for the program to end if
its continuation cannot be justified by the continuing threat
or the program's ability to address this threat, as stated in
this title.
Nuclear Security Summit 2012
The committee recognizes the success of the 2012 Nuclear
Security Summit, which occurred in the Republic of Korea on
March 26-27, 2012. This summit followed the 2010 Nuclear
Security Summit, held in Washington, D.C. The committee
commends the achievements announced at the summit, particularly
the efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear material at the
Semipalatinsk test site in the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the
announcements that Ukraine and the United Mexican States have
been cleaned out of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and that the
Czech Republic, Mexico, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
have converted their research reactors using HEU fuel to low-
enriched fuel. The major themes of the 2012 summit focused on
important areas of nonproliferation, including global nuclear
security architecture, nuclear security and safety, combating
illicit trafficking, and greater international cooperation. The
committee believes the increased participation of foreign
governments is important, particularly in recognizing the
threat of nuclear terrorism, seeking to secure vulnerable
nuclear material and radioactive sources, and developing
nuclear forensics capabilities. The committee encourages the
National Nuclear Security Administration to develop its
strategic guidance, objectives, activities and metrics in
accordance with U.S. national security interests, and where
appropriate align with the 2010 work-plan, which was the basis
for evaluating progress at the 2012 summit, and the 2012
communique.
Plutonium Disposition Program and Mixed Oxide Fabrication Facility
The committee continues to be concerned about the
significant cost escalation, delays and planning related to the
plutonium disposition program at the Savannah River Site and
construction and operations of the Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX)
Fabrication Facility. The committee notes that the fiscal year
2004 cost estimate for the facility was $1.6 million, but that
costs have risen to $4.9 billion, and is aware that a potential
change to the project's baseline could increase the latest cost
estimate by an additional $600.0 million to $900.0 million. In
addition, the committee is concerned the projected operating
costs for the plant have doubled. The committee is also
concerned that almost five years after construction began, the
Department of Energy has not yet confirmed any buyer for the
MOX fuel. The committee notes the potential for further delays
until additional testing and certification are completed, which
could take several more years, leading to the production of MOX
fuel without any committed buyer. The committee requests
Department of Energy brief the committee by July 31, 2012, on a
plan with potential changes to the baseline and an explanation
of the costs.
Naval Reactors
Naval Reactors
The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects
of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant
technology design and development, reactor plant operation and
maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program
ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers that represent
over 40 percent of the Navy's combatants.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request proposed to delay
procurement of the OHIO-class ballistic missile submarine
replacement by two years from previous schedule. The committee
disagrees with this decision, and supports procurement of the
OHIO-class replacement submarines on the original schedule. To
support this, the committee recommends $1.2 billion for the
Naval Reactors program, an increase of $99.0 million to the
budget request. This increase will support continued
development of an advanced ``life-of-the-boat'' nuclear reactor
for the OHIO-class replacement submarine program.
Report by the Director of Naval Reactors
United States civil nuclear cooperation carries the
intrinsic risk that some technology transferred for civilian
purposes may directly or indirectly provide benefits to foreign
military nuclear programs. The committee believes such risk
must be kept to the minimum possible when civilian nuclear
cooperation occurs.
The committee directs the Director, Naval Reactors, in
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
State and the Director of National Intelligence, to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees and the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs by November 15, 2012, detailing
any nuclear cooperation under a so-called ``123'' nuclear
cooperation agreement in the preceding 5 years that directly or
indirectly advantaged, or has the potential to advantage, the
military nuclear program, including nuclear naval propulsion or
weapons programs, of another nation. The Director's report
should be submitted in classified form.
Report on Potential Use of Low-Enriched Uranium for Naval Reactors
The committee is aware of a study conducted by the
Director, Naval Reactors in 1995 to assess the technical,
environmental, economic, and proliferation implications of
using low-enriched uranium (LEU) in place of highly-enriched
uranium (HEU) in Naval nuclear propulsion systems. The
committee notes that the report concluded that ``the use of LEU
in U.S. Naval reactor plants is technically feasible, but
uneconomic and impractical.''
The committee directs the Director, Naval Reactors to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2013, that describes any updates to the findings and
conclusions from the 1995 report, including any changes in the
estimated costs for fabricating HEU and LEU life-of-ship cores,
the ability to refuel nuclear-propelled submarines and ships
without extending the duration or frequency of major overhauls,
and the overall health of the technology base that may be
required to utilize LEU in Naval nuclear propulsion systems.
Office of the Administrator
Governance, Management, and Oversight of the Nuclear Security
Enterprise
In the second session of the 112th Congress, the committee
has conducted a series of oversight activities related to
continuing management challenges at the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). These problems have been
documented and highlighted by a long series of reports over the
12 years since NNSA was created by Congress.
In 2009, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States concluded that ``the
governance structure of the NNSA is not delivering the needed
results. This governance structure should be changed.'' The
Commission elaborated, saying, ``Federal oversight of the
weapons enterprise needs significant improvement. Key to that
improvement is reconsidering the role and performance of the
NNSA. The NNSA was formed to improve management of the weapons
program and to shelter that program from what was perceived as
a welter of confusing and contradictory DOE directives,
policies, and procedures. Despite some success, the NNSA has
failed to meet the hopes of its founders. Indeed, it may have
become part of the problem, adopting the same micromanagement
and unnecessary and obtrusive oversight that it was created to
eliminate.'' The Commission also found that ``efforts to
implement the NNSA Act and to maintain even limited NNSA
autonomy have resulted in a large and continuing measure of
bureaucratic conflict. This has been a major distraction . . .
the original intent of the legislation creating the NNSA has
not been realized. The desired autonomy has not come into
being. It is time to consider fundamental changes.
Organizational changes may not be sufficient for reducing the
regulatory burden, but they are clearly necessary.''
A 2009 report by The Henry L. Stimson Center, ``Leveraging
Science for Security: A Strategy for the Nuclear Weapons Labs
in the 21st Century,'' drew similar conclusions. The Stimson
Center study group concluded: ``The implementation of the NNSA
Act failed to achieve the intended autonomy for NNSA within the
Department of Energy. The Labs now must operate within a
complicated set of bureaucratic relationships with both DOE and
NNSA. An excessively bureaucratic DOE culture has infiltrated
NNSA as well.'' The study also concluded that ``NNSA and the
Laboratories do not always work in partnership with one
another. Rather than the NNSA telling the Laboratories `what'
and the Labs responding with `how,' the Labs are defining
`what' and the NNSA (in particular, the site offices) is
micromanaging `how.''' The Stimson Center study group
ultimately made a series of recommendations to improve the
governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security
laboratories, including ``creating a fully independent agency''
and ``fully severing NNSA and its Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers, including the Nevada Test Site, from
DOE.''
In February 2012, the National Academies of Science (NAS)
study group on ``Managing for High-Quality Science and
Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories''
concluded in its Phase I report that ``the relationship between
NNSA and its [labs] is broken to an extent that very seriously
affects the labs' capability to manage for quality science and
engineering.'' The NAS group cited an erosion of trust as a
principal cause for this ``dysfunctional relationship,''
elaborating that, ``there is a perception among . . . staff and
managers at the three Laboratories that NNSA has moved from
partnering with the Laboratories to solve scientific and
engineering problems, to assigning tasks and specific science
and engineering solutions with detailed implementation
instructions. This approach precludes taking full advantage of
the intellectual and management skills that taxpayer dollars
have purchased. The [NAS] study committee found similar issues
in transactional oversight of safety, business, security and
operations.''
In March 2012, a separate NAS group studying a different
issue also commented on the governance, management, and
oversight model for the nuclear security enterprise. In its
report, ``The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty--Technical
Issues for the United States,'' this NAS study committee said,
``During this committee's investigations, we repeatedly learned
of management issues that interfere with the ability to sustain
the nuclear weapons enterprise.'' The report identified a key
concern that ``both the day-to-day management and the
incentives are driven almost entirely by the fine print of the
contract and its implications for the fees of the
contractors.'' The NAS found that the laboratories' performance
evaluations, based on the contracts, ``glaringly lack
incentives designed to measure the effectiveness of their
support for the technical mission. Instead, the specific
metrics focus on internally referential activities such as
completing paperwork correctly, holding meetings on a
prescribed schedule, or providing reports by a specific date.''
Evaluating similar issues that occurred at the United Kingdom's
Atomic Weapons Establishment, and that were addressed by
management and oversight reforms, the NAS commented that ``it
appears to the committee that this `eyes on, hands off'
approach is performing well.'' The NAS group ultimately found
that ``the current contract system for the nuclear weapons
laboratories has not produced a more innovative, efficient, and
cost-effective approach,'' and recommended that ``the DOE/NNSA
should re-evaluate the current contract system for carrying out
the tasks of the nuclear weapons program. At a minimum, any new
approach should: (1) reduce the number of requirements in
directives and simultaneously transform those requirements to
performance goals (prescribing what must be done, not how to do
it); and (2) shift the balance of incentives in contracts for
the weapons laboratories to emphasize successful implementation
of the technical mission.''
The committee notes that these and many other reports and
studies have reached strikingly similar conclusions--and offer
many similar recommendations. The committee believes that the
President and Congress must reform governance, management, and
oversight structures and processes to ensure the nuclear
security enterprise will effectively and efficiently meet its
core nuclear weapons mission and other national security
requirements. Elsewhere in this title are provisions which
begin such reforms.
National Nuclear Security Administration Budget Categories
The committee has noted the expansion of the number of
budget categories within the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) budget request for many years. The
committee understands that the NNSA executes a wide range of
nuclear security programs, and that a reduced number of
budgeting categories can provide both greater efficiency in
management as well as increased agility to respond to new
requirements--but the committee is mindful of the need for
robust transparency and accountability.
The committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, in coordination with the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), to consider how NNSA budget
categories might be changed to enable increased efficiency and
agility while ensuring robust transparency and accountability
to Congress. The committee expects the Administrator to consult
closely with Congress before making any changes to NNSA budget
categories.
Nuclear Security Laboratories as Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
sponsors three federally funded research and development
centers (FFRDC) to carry out programs at NNSA's nuclear
security laboratories--Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National
Laboratories. The committee notes that, according to Federal
Acquisition Rule (FAR) 35.017, FFRDCs are used by the federal
government to meet ``some special long-term research or
development need which cannot be met as effectively by existing
in-house or contractor resources,'' and that FFRDCs enable
federal agencies ``to use private sector resources to
accomplish tasks that are integral to the mission and operation
of the sponsoring agency.'' Prohibiting the FFRDCs from
competing against private industry, FAR 35.017 goes on to say
that ``long-term relationships between the Government and
FFRDCs are encouraged in order to provide the continuity that
will attract high-quality personnel to the FFRDC. This
relationship should be of a type to encourage the FFRDC to
maintain currency in its field(s) of expertise, maintain its
objectivity and independence, preserve its familiarity with the
needs of its sponsor(s), and provide a quick response
capability.''
The committee understands that FFRDCs are intended to
create a special relationship and environment that allows basic
and applied science to flourish by providing a buffer from
government bureaucracy and politics while ensuring the FFRDC is
responsive to national needs. In testimony before the
committee, the co-chair of a recent National Academies of
Science (NAS) panel explained that, ``the FFRDC relationship is
based on a partnership between the government and the
laboratory in which the government decides what problems need
to be addressed, and the contractor determines how best to
address those problems.'' The NAS panel concluded that the
current relationship between NNSA and its lab FFRDCs is
``broken'' and that this ``dysfunctional relationship seriously
threatens'' the quality of the science and engineering at the
labs. The NAS cited an erosion of trust as a principal cause
for this dysfunction and recommended the following corrective
measures:
(1) NAS ``recommends that NNSA and each of the
Laboratories commit to the goal of rebalancing the managerial
and governance relationship to build in a higher level of trust
in program execution and laboratory operations in general.''
(2) NAS ``recommends that NNSA and the Laboratories agree
on a set of principles that clearly lay out the boundaries and
roles of each management structure, and also that program
managers at headquarters, the Site Offices, and in the
laboratories be directed to abide by these principles.''
(3) NAS ``recommends that the goal of rebalancing the
relationship and the set of principles laying out the
boundaries and roles of each management structure be
memorialized in memoranda of understanding between NNSA and its
Laboratories. Performance against these understandings should
be assessed on an annual basis over a five-year period and
reported to Congress.''
The committee supports these findings of the NAS, and
expects NNSA and its labs to implement their recommendations.
The committee is concerned that further delay in repairing the
broken management structure and relationship may lead to damage
to the quality of science and engineering at the laboratories.
The committee encourages the NNSA and the Department of Energy
to return to the original principles embodied in the FFRDC
construct.
Public Release of Management and Operating Contractor Performance
Evaluations
The committee believes that the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) annual Performance Evaluation Reports
of the management and operating (M&O) contractors of the
nuclear security enterprise are an important tool to assess
management and performance, and to increase accountability for,
and transparency on, the use of taxpayers' dollars.
In 2009, the NNSA promulgated a new policy to restrict the
release of contractor performance evaluations for a period of
three years after completion. In 2012, the NNSA reversed this
decision and has returned to its practice of releasing the
performance evaluations annually. The committee notes the
importance of accountability and transparency in the
performance of the M&O contractors and commends the NNSA's
decision to publicly release these evaluations. The committee
notes that it supports making these evaluations public while
exempting the release of any information that is specifically
precluded by law.
Report and Implementation Actions for Findings and Recommendations
Related to Governance, Management, and Oversight of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise
Elsewhere in this title, the committee describes the well-
documented problems related to governance, management, and
oversight of the nuclear security enterprise. Based upon these
concerns, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
December 1, 2012, on the findings and recommendations contained
in: (1) the National Academies of Science report, ``Managing
for High-Quality Science and Engineering at the NNSA National
Security Laboratories''; (2) the National Laboratory Directors'
Council's (NLDC) May 31, 2011, white paper to the Secretary of
Energy, ``NLDC Prioritization of Burdensome Policies and
Practices''; and (3) the Department of Energy's Office of the
Inspector General (IG) special report, ``Management Challenges
at the Department of Energy,'' for the IG's findings that
pertain to the National Nuclear Security Administration. The
report should include, for each individual finding and
recommendation contained in the documents: the views of the
Administrator and the Secretary on the finding or
recommendation; a determination by the Administrator and the
Secretary on whether action will be taken to address the
finding and recommendation; if a determination is made to take
action on a finding or recommendation, a description of
implementation actions to be taken to address the finding or
recommendation; and, if a determination is made to take no
action on a finding or recommendation, an explanation of why no
action will be taken. The report should also include a detailed
list of actions to be taken, the responsible parties for
carrying out the actions, and the timeline for when these
actions will be accomplished. The report should also contain a
list of proposed actions Congress could take to address the
findings.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $6.2 billion for environmental
and other defense activities for fiscal year 2013. The
committee recommends $6.2 billion, a decrease of $40.0 million
to the budget request.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Environmental Management Technology Development Program
The budget request contained $20.0 million for the
technology development program of the Office of Environmental
Management. This program is focused on resolving technical
challenges and developing transformational technology solutions
to address the highest priority needs of the environmental
remediation program. Technologies developed by this program
have already been shown to reduce costs, improve waste
processing throughput, and improve schedules for waste cleanup
activities. Because the environmental cleanup program as a
whole is expected to cost over $300.0 billion and last until
the 2060s, relatively small amounts of money spent today on
technology and process improvements can lead to major savings
in the future. Therefore, the committee recommends $30.0
million for the technology development program, an increase of
$10.0 million to the budget request.
Prioritization of Environmental Cleanup Efforts
In the November 2011, special report, ``Management
Challenges at the Department of Energy,'' the Inspector General
(IG) of the Department of Energy wrote that the Department's
environmental remediation program costs ``and related
requirements are the result of individual, site-specific
negotiations between the Department and Federal and state
regulators.'' The Inspector General noted that modifying the
agreements resulting from these negotiations ``would be a very
costly and time-consuming process and would, understandably, be
extremely unpopular with a variety of constituencies,'' but
also added that ``the current strategy may not be
sustainable.'' The Inspector General suggests that the
Department of Energy ``should consider revising its current
remediation strategy and instead address environmental concerns
on a national, complex-wide risk basis,'' and, ``looking at the
program holistically, fund only high risk activities that
threaten health and safety.''
The committee also recognizes the difficulty and challenges
posed in fully transitioning to such a paradigm, but believes
further consideration of the idea may be warranted. Therefore,
the committee directs the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by October 31, 2012, on prioritization of
environmental cleanup efforts at the Department of Energy. The
briefing should include a description of how the Department
currently prioritizes cleanup efforts and the costs, benefits,
and challenges of transitioning to the complex-wide risk basis
recommended by the Inspector General. The committee expects the
Assistant Secretary to consult with the Inspector General to
fully understand and evaluate the IG's proposal.
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant
The committee continues to closely follow developments
related to the design and construction of the Waste Treatment
and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford site. Problems
with the concurrent approach the Department of Energy (DOE) has
chosen to design and construct this facility have been well
documented. This approach, coupled with continuing technical
and safety challenges, have contributed to an increase in total
project cost of more than 100 percent since the beginning of
construction. The current total project cost for WTP is $12.5
billion. The committee understands that the DOE expects to re-
baseline this project in the near-future, which will likely
result in another increase in cost.
The committee remains concerned that the WTP project, which
will result in the largest and most complex nuclear waste
treatment facility in the world, continues to face major
technical problems, safety concerns, and cost increases,
despite construction being over 63 percent complete. The
committee notes that the DOE Office of Environmental Management
has worked closely with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board to resolve safety issues and should continue to work
closely with the Board and the DOE Office of Health, Safety,
and Security (HSS) to resolve outstanding issues, including
safety culture concerns highlighted by the Board and HSS. The
committee supports the efforts of the Board and the DOE, and it
encourages both parties to work cooperatively to put the WTP
project on a successful and safe path.
Other Defense Activities
Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety, and Security
The budget request contained $245.5 million for the
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety, and
Security in the Other Defense Activities account. As described
elsewhere in this title, several provisions in this title
would, collectively, transfer authority and responsibility for
regulation, policy, and oversight of health, safety, and
security in the nuclear security enterprise from the Secretary
of Energy to the Administrator for Nuclear Security.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $195.5 million for
Health, Safety, and Security, a decrease of $50.0 million to
the budget request.
Review of the Supply Chain Security and Integrity of the Nuclear
Weapons Complex
The committee is concerned by the findings of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its report, ``IT
Supply Chain: National Security-Related Agencies Need to Better
Address Risks'' (GAO-12-361). The report stated that,
``Although four national security-related departments--the
Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, and
Defense--have acknowledged these threats, two of the
departments--Energy and Homeland Security--have not yet defined
supply chain protection measures for department information
systems and are not in a position to have implementing
procedures or monitoring capabilities to verify compliance with
and effectiveness of any such measures.''
The committee is also aware that its ``2011 Report to
Congress,'' the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission detailed specific supply chain threats originating
from firms linked to the Government of the People's Republic of
China. These firms, specifically Huawei and ZTE Corporation,
have been, and are likely to continue to provide billions of
dollars in Chinese Government support. The report also stated
that these firms have been blocked from certain deals with U.S.
firms because of national security concerns.
The committee is concerned by these developments as well
and the information technology (IT) chain problems reported by
GAO. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy,
in consultation with the National Counter Intelligence
Executive, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by August 31, 2012, on the supply chain risks to the
Department of Energy. The report should address the following:
(1) IT supply chain vulnerabilities of the Department of
Energy, with special attention paid to the laboratories and
plants of the national nuclear weapons enterprise; (2) Evaluate
whether the Department of Energy, or any its major contractors,
have a supply chain that includes technology produced by Huawei
or ZTE Corporation; and (3) A plan for implementation of the
recommendations of the GAO report referenced above.
Finally, the committee is aware that section 806 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383) provided the Department of Defense the
authority to protect its supply chain. The committee is also
aware that section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-87) provided the
intelligence community similar authority. The committee further
directs the Secretary of Energy to include in the report an
assessment of any concerns he may have about providing similar
authority in order to protect the Department of Energy's IT
supply chain.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, the Blue Ribbon Commission, and
Investigation of Salt Dome Disposal
The committee has long supported the development of a deep
geologic repository for permanent disposal of high-level
radioactive defense waste. Current law establishes Yucca
Mountain in Nevada as the nation's first repository, provided
the license application submitted by the Department of Energy
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission meets requirements. In
2010, the Obama Administration withdrew the license application
and took actions to terminate the Yucca Mountain project. In
January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future, established by executive order, released a report
describing recommended actions to get the nation's nuclear
waste disposal program back on track. The Commission did not
evaluate Yucca Mountain or any other potential repository site
and did not comment on the Administration's decision to
withdraw the license application.
The committee is pleased to note that the Commission spent
considerable effort addressing issues related to defense
nuclear waste, even though defense waste is a small fraction of
the total quantity of U.S. nuclear waste awaiting disposition.
If the ongoing delay continues in finding a suitable
repository, the eventual impact on defense programs,
particularly the Naval Nuclear Reactors Program, will be
considerable. Furthermore, the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant at Hanford, Washington, is currently being
constructed with no final plan for where the waste it treats
will be disposed. Due to these medium-term defense concerns,
the committee will closely follow progress on developing a
national nuclear waste repository. Further, the committee
supports the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation that
``urges the Administration to launch an immediate review of the
implications of leaving responsibility for disposal of defense
waste and other DOE-owned waste with DOE versus moving it to a
new waste management organization.'' Such a review could help
clarify a potential path forward for defense nuclear waste
disposal.
Finally, because the proposed capacity of the Yucca
Mountain repository is already fully subscribed by the defense
and non-defense nuclear waste currently awaiting disposition,
the committee notes that development of another geologic
repository is already required--whether the Yucca Mountain
repository proceeds or not. The committee notes that since the
1957 report of the National Academies of Science, ``The
Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land,'' called disposal of
radioactive wastes in salt deposits ``the most promising method
of disposal,'' many experts and studies have recommended
disposal in salt domes--particularly for wastes that have a low
probability of being reprocessed or reused. Because most
defense nuclear waste is unlikely to be reprocessed or reused,
the committee encourages the Department of Energy to
investigate the efficacy of permanent disposal of high-level
defense nuclear waste in geologic salt formations.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2013,
including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and the
Office of the Administrator, at the levels identified in
section 4701 of division D of this Act.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2013, at the
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize appropriations for other
defense activities for fiscal year 2013, including funds for
Health, Safety, and Security, the Office of Legacy Management,
and Nuclear Energy, at the funds identified in section 4701 of
division D of this Act.
Section 3104--Energy Security and Assurance
This section would authorize appropriations for energy
security and assurance programs for fiscal year 2013, at the
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3111--Authorized Personnel Levels of the Office of the
Administrator
This section would amend the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401) by creating a new section
3241A that would limit the total number of employees of the
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of the
Administrator. The total number of employees of the Office of
the Administrator, as determined on a full-time equivalent
basis, would be limited to 1,730 beginning 180 days after
enactment, and 1,630 beginning October 1, 2014. This section
would exclude from counting toward this limit the employees of
the Office of Naval Reactors, the employees of the Office of
Secure Transportation, and Members of the Armed Forces who are
detailed to NNSA. The section would allow the Administrator to
offer voluntary separation or retirement incentives to help
meet the personnel level limits, and would require the
Administrator to establish a work placement program to assist
separating employees in finding new employment.
Further, this section would also amend section 3241 of the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441)
to increase from 300 to 450 the number of scientific,
engineering, and technical positions in the NNSA. Finally, this
section would require the Administrator to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees within 180 days of
enactment of this Act on the required reductions, the cost
savings from the reductions and the transition to performance-
based governance, management, and oversight required by
sections included elsewhere in this title, and other matters.
The Comptroller General would be required to provide the
congressional defense committees an assessment of this report
within 180 days of its submission.
The committee believes that, as part of the reforms to the
NNSA described in detail elsewhere in this title, the
Administrator must streamline the NNSA's Federal workforce. A
key component of the reforms required by this title is a
transition from the current transaction-based system of
oversight of the nuclear security enterprise to a performance-
based system. Such a performance-based system will require
fewer Federal employees but enable the NNSA to conduct equally
robust oversight of its management and operating contractors.
The committee believes that by limiting the number of Federal
employees at the NNSA, Congress can provide a key mechanism for
ensuring the transition to performance-based oversight occurs.
The committee expects that the reductions will result in
savings across the nuclear security enterprise, and that as a
result, efficiencies at the laboratories and plants will
increase and overhead rates will decrease.
The committee also notes that several independent
assessments of NNSA's management and governance structure have
stated that NNSA's Federal employees often lack the technical
knowledge needed to effectively oversee many programs at the
nuclear security laboratories. The committee believes that this
section, which would increase by 50 percent the number of
special scientific, engineering, and technical positions the
Administrator may appoint within NNSA, would help address these
concerns.
Section 3112--Budget Justification Materials
This section would require the Administrator of Nuclear
Security to include in the budget request, beginning with the
fiscal year 2014 budget request, an assessment of how that
budget maintains the core nuclear weapons skills, including
nuclear weapons design, engineering, production, testing, and
prediction of stockpile aging. In its final report submitted to
Congress in May 2009, the Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States found that, ``attracting
and retaining the top national talent and expertise requires
that the laboratories conduct challenging research on important
national problems. This program of work must be sustained,
predictable, and exercise the full range of laboratory skills,
including nuclear weapon design skills. Exercising these design
skills is necessary to maintain design and production
engineering capabilities. Skills that are not exercised will
atrophy.'' The Commission recommended that, ``the Congress
should require that annual NNSA budget submissions include an
assessment of whether the budget as proposed will maintain
these capabilities. To monitor progress, the NNSA and the White
House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should establish a
formal mechanism for tracking funding sources for the weapons
laboratories, without additional administrative burden on the
laboratories. The assessment of needed expertise, its
recruitment, and its retention are necessary but not sufficient
preconditions for maintaining proficiency. Those skills must be
exercised.'' This section would seek to implement the
Commission's recommendation.
Section 3113--Contractor Governance, Oversight, and Accountability
This section would amend the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401) by adding a new section
that would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to
establish a system of governance, management, and oversight of
management and operating contracts of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). The system established by the
Administrator would be required to: (1) include clear and
auditable performance-based standards related to both mission
effectiveness and operations of the contractor; (2) ensure that
governance, management, and oversight of the contract is
conducted, when applicable, pursuant to national and
international standards and best practices; (3) recognize the
respective roles of the Federal Government in determining
performance-based objectives and the contractor (particularly
contractors running a Federally Funded Research and Development
Center) in determining how to accomplish such objectives; (4)
conduct oversight based on outcomes and performance-based
standards and not detailed, transaction-based oversight; and
(5) include measures to ensure the Administrator has accurate
and consistent data to manage and make decisions across the
nuclear security enterprise.
The Administrator would be allowed to exempt individual
areas of governance, management, and oversight from the
requirements of this system and continue to conduct
transaction-based oversight if the Administrator determines
that such exemption is necessary to ensure the national
security or safety, security, or performance. If the
Administrator makes such exemptions, the Administrator would be
required to submit an annual certification of such exemption to
the congressional defense committees that includes a
description of why such exemption is needed.
The Administrator would also be provided a 3-year period
starting on the date of enactment of this Act in which the
Administrator may temporarily exempt individual facilities or
contractors from the system established by this section and
continue to conduct transaction-based oversight if the
Administrator determines that such exemption is needed to
ensure that robust contractor assurance, accountability, and
performance-based oversight mechanisms are in place for the
facility or contractor. If the Administrator makes such
exemptions, the Administrator would be required to annually
submit to the congressional defense committees a written
justification for such exemptions and a plan and schedule to
transition the exempted facility or contractor to the
performance-based system established pursuant to this section.
This section would also require the Administrator to ensure
that each management and operating contract of NNSA includes
robust mechanisms for ensuring the accountability of the
contractor and that the Administrator exercise such mechanisms
as appropriate to ensure the performance by the contractor.
Finally, this section would require the Administrator to
submit a report by January 15, 2013, and each year thereafter
until 2016, to the congressional defense committees that
includes a description of each instance during the previous
year in which an agency of the Federal Government used a
procedure, standard, or process of governance, management, and
oversight of a contract of the NNSA that is not a procedure,
standard, or process that conforms to national or international
standards or industry best practices. The report would also be
required to include a description of why each such procedure,
standard, or process was used instead of a national or
international standard or best practice. Finally, the report
would include a description of any oversight activities by any
agency of the Federal Government that occurred during the
previous year that the Administrator considers duplicative or
unnecessary.
Section 3114--National Nuclear Security Administration Council
This section would amend section 4102 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2512) to streamline statutory
requirements related to the management structure of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This section
would also reform and broaden the mandate of the Defense
Programs Management Council and rename it the ``National
Nuclear Security Administration Council.'' The Council would
advise the Administrator for Nuclear Security on scientific and
technical issues related to policy matters, and on operational
concerns, strategic planning, and development of priorities
related to the nuclear security enterprise and to the mission
and operations of the NNSA. The Council would be composed of
the directors of NNSA's national security laboratories and
nuclear weapons production facilities. This section would also
provide the Council the authority to provide recommendations to
the Administrator or the Secretary of Energy, and would require
the Administrator or the Secretary to provide a response to the
Council within 60 days of receiving such a recommendation.
The committee believes that the NNSA Council would provide
an important mechanism for the directors of the national
security laboratories and nuclear weapons production facilities
to provide their recommendations on mission- and operational-
concerns to the Administrator and the Secretary; create a
necessary and sustained dialogue between NNSA and the directors
of its laboratories and plants on NNSA's strategic priorities
and plans; and help ensure robust implementation and successful
execution of reforms to NNSA's management, governance, and
oversight structures and processes.
Section 3115--Safety, Health, and Security of the National Nuclear
Security Administration
This section would amend the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (Title 32 of Public Law 106-65) to require
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to establish policies
and procedures for the regulation and oversight of health,
safety, and security of the nuclear security enterprise. In
conjunction with a provision the committee includes elsewhere
in this title that would strengthen the autonomy of the NNSA,
this section would transition the authority to make policy,
prescribe regulations, and conduct oversight of health, safety,
and security in the nuclear security enterprise from the
Department of Energy (DOE) to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA).
First, this section would amend section 3231 of the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2421)
to require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to establish
policies and procedures to ensure the protection of special
nuclear material, sensitive physical assets, and classified
information in the possession of the NNSA. The Administrator
would be required to establish procedures to ensure any
significant problems related to security are promptly reported.
Second, this section would amend section 3261 of the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2461)
to ensure that the Administrator is the responsible authority
for ensuring and overseeing NNSA compliance with all applicable
health and safety requirements. For non-nuclear operations, the
Administrator would be required to ensure that NNSA complies
with all applicable occupational safety and health standards
promulgated pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 and that NNSA's compliance and oversight of such
standards is conducted in accordance with best industry and
Government practices and with the performance-based system of
governance, management, and oversight established pursuant to a
provision included elsewhere in this title, notwithstanding the
Administrator's authority under such provision to exempt
individual activities and continue to conduct transaction-based
oversight.
The Administrator would be limited from establishing or
prescribing any order, rule, or regulation regarding
occupational safety and health unless such order, rule, or
regulation is pursuant to standards resulting from the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Administrator
would be allowed the authority to waive this requirement and
apply more stringent standards if the Administrator determines
that such a waiver is necessary to ensure safety. The
Administrator would be required to waive this requirement and
apply stricter standards for operations involving beryllium. If
the Administrator makes exemptions using this authority and
applies more stringent standards, the Administrator would be
required to submit an annual certification to the congressional
defense committees regarding why such waivers are required.
For nuclear operations, this section would require the
Administrator to prescribe appropriate policies and regulations
to ensure that risks to the health and safety of the employees
of NNSA and its contractors, as well as the general public, are
as low as reasonably practicable and that adequate protection
is provided. The Administrator would be required to ensure that
NNSA's compliance and oversight of such policies related to
nuclear operations is in accordance with the performance-based
system of governance, management, and oversight established
pursuant to a provision included elsewhere in this title,
notwithstanding the Administrator's authority under such
provision to exempt individual activities and continue to
conduct transaction-based oversight. This section would delay
full transition of authority with regards to nuclear safety
until October 1, 2013, and would require the Administrator to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2013, on an implementation plan and cost-benefit
analysis for transitioning the policy, regulatory, and
oversight authority for nuclear safety from the Department of
Energy to the NNSA.
In its February 2012 Phase I report on ``Managing for High-
Quality Science and Engineering at the NNSA National Security
Laboratories,'' the National Academies of Science recommended
``that the NNSA, Congress, and top management of the
Laboratories recognize that safety and security systems at the
Laboratories have been strengthened to the point where they no
longer need special attention. NNSA and Laboratory management
should explore ways by which the administrative, safety, and
security costs can be reduced, so that they not impose an
excessive burden on essential science and engineering
activities.''
In its 2009 report, the bipartisan Congressional Commission
on the Strategic Posture of the United States found that ``the
regulatory burden on the laboratories is excessive and should
be rationalized,'' and ``that burden imposes a significant cost
and less heavy-handed oversight would bring real benefits.''
The Commission continued, ``This conclusion is backed up by
some real data. One recent external assessment of NNSA
laboratories . . . found a very high cost of compliance with
federal safety and security requirements--approximately 15
times as much as for companies of similar complexity
(recognizing also some important differences in some of the
functions of those companies). Some other data is available
from a pilot program conducted by the NNSA at the Kansas City
Plant in 2006 and 2007. Under this program, the plant was
exempted from essentially all DOE regulations and additional
oversight changes were made. An external audit documented
significant savings. Extending this approach throughout the
complex is feasible.''
In response to a request from the Secretary of Energy, the
National Laboratory Directors Council (consisting of DOE and
NNSA national lab directors) submitted a white paper in May
2011, identifying 18 policies and practices the NLDC deemed
``most burdensome.'' The NLDC stated that the DOE rule
regarding occupational health goes ``significantly beyond the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards
and incorporates standards that were not designed to be
regulatory in nature. It has not been demonstrated that the
rule has improved worker safety at DOE facilities since its
adoption; however, the cost to implement and maintain the
requirements that go beyond the OSHA standards have
significantly increased costs . . . Therefore, it is
recommended that the rule be revised to implement only OSHA
standards. This action would align DOE facilities with U.S.
industry, academia, and other federal facilities such as the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.'' The Strategic
Posture Commission recommended this action as well, saying in
its 2009 report: ``the commission recommends that the
Administrator should issue no regulations concerning
occupational health and safety but should depend on the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration for both
regulations and oversight.''
Based upon these and other reports, the committee believes
that the lines of authority, responsibility, and oversight for
health, safety, and security within the nuclear security
enterprise are unclear, duplicative, and inefficient. The
committee believes that safety and security must remain a
paramount concern for the NNSA, but notes that, as in military
operations, duplicative and confused lines of authority and
responsibility often lead to less effective outcomes. The
committee believes this section, coupled with other provisions
included elsewhere in this title, would streamline redundant
functions, and lead to more effective and more efficient
oversight of these important matters.
Section 3116--Design and Use of Prototypes of Nuclear Weapons
This section would required that the Administrator of
Nuclear Security should develop and carry out a plan for the
national nuclear weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons
production plants to design and build prototypes of nuclear
weapons to further intelligence assessments of foreign nuclear
weapons activities. This section would also prohibit the
Administrator from conducting any experiment that would produce
a nuclear yield. The committee urges the Administrator to use
surrogate materials where appropriate in designing and building
these prototypes.
The committee notes in its final report, one of the
recommendations the Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States was that: ``A particularly
sensitive question is whether the laboratories should be
permitted to do weapons design work in support of this
intelligence mission. At issue is whether the United States
should seek to improve its understanding of the feasibility of
the weapons design efforts of others by replicating those
designs in U.S. laboratories. In the commission's view, this is
possible and this work should be permitted. At a time of rising
concern about efforts by proliferators to develop and improve
their nuclear weapons, and of nuclear terrorism, such work is
indeed critical. Such work would not involve the design of new
weapons with new military characteristics for deployment by the
United States. It can and should be done in accordance with
U.S. policies not to produce fissile materials and not to
conduct nuclear explosive tests. It would be limited to
assessing whether adversarial efforts in development of new
nuclear weapons will result in operational capabilities, and
what technical, military, political, and other consequences
might follow from the potential new capabilities. Working with
partners in the intelligence community, the laboratories should
be in a position to advise national leadership on foreign
nuclear weapons activities bearing on the interests of the
United States and its allies. In short, the commission
recommends that the laboratories be allowed to design,
simulate, and experimentally assess foreign nuclear weapon
designs for the purposes of defensive analysis.''
Further, the committee notes that the National Academies
panel on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty made a
similar recommendation when it stated: ``Allowing the workforce
to have the technical responsibility and flexibility in
defining the paths to mission goals supports both workforce
development and workforce morale. The ``challenge programs''
run by the AWE illustrate what can be achieved in this regard.
For example, in one challenge program the AWE designed a new
warhead (together with the non-nuclear components), although
the UK has no intention of producing any such weapon. This
helped to maintain proficiency and train the next generation of
warhead designers. Such flexibility for activities undertaken
by AWE with MOD approval (but not MOD direction) helps to
recruit and maintain a top-flight workforce and to exercise the
advanced tools of the program. Programs of this nature have
been tried, with positive workforce response, in the U.S.
complex, but have fallen victim to budget pressures and
micromanagement to short term goals.''
Section 3117--Improvement and Streamlining of the Missions and
Operations of the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security
Administration
This section would require the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to revise various
regulations, rules, directives, orders, and policies to improve
and streamline the administration, execution, and oversight of
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) missions and operations,
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
These efforts would include: (1) streamlining business
processes and structures to reduce unnecessary, overly
burdensome, or duplicative approvals; (2) delegating approval
for all but very high value or unique Work Force Others (WFO)
agreements and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADA) to DOE and NNSA's management and operating contractors
while holding such contractors accountable for maintaining
appropriate WFO and CRADA portfolios; (3) establishing
processes for ensuring routine or low-risk procurement and
subcontracting decisions are made at the discretion of the
management and operating contractors; (4) assessing current
procurement thresholds and taking steps to adjust such
thresholds if appropriate; (5) eliminating duplicative or low-
value reports and data calls and ensuring consistency in
management and cost accounting data; and (6) streamlining,
clarifying, and eliminating redundancy in regulations, rules,
directives, orders, and policies. Finally, this section would
require the Secretary and the Administrator to provide a
briefing on these efforts to the congressional defense
committees and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Section 3118--Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of Management and
Operating Contracts
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees before the Administrator releases any final request
for proposals for competition of any contract to manage and
operate a facility of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The report would be required to include a cost-
benefit analysis of the competition that includes the expected
costs and cost savings resulting from the competition; a
description of any disruption or delay in mission activities or
deliverables resulting from the competition; a description of
any benefits of the proposed competition to mission performance
or operations; and an assessment of how the competition
complies with the Federal Acquisition Regulation regarding
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, if
applicable. This section would also require the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit a review of the
Administrator's report to the congressional defense committees
within 90 days of the Administrator submitting any report
pursuant to this section. The requirements of this section
would apply to any request for proposals that is released by
the Administrator during fiscal years 2012-17.
Section 3119--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Inertial
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
funds for fusion ignition research and experiments to not more
than 50 percent until the Administrator for Nuclear Security
certifies to the congressional defense committees that fusion
ignition has been achieved at the National Ignition Facility
(NIF) or the Administrator submits a report on fusion ignition.
This limitation would not apply to the Z-machine at Sandia
National Laboratories or the Omega facility at the University
of Rochester.
If the Administrator submits a report pursuant to this
section, the report would be required to include a thorough
description of the remaining technical challenges and gaps in
understanding with respect to ignition; a plan and schedule for
reevaluating the ignition program and incorporating
experimental data into computer models; the best judgment of
the Administrator with respect to whether ignition can be
achieved at the NIF; and a description of how, if funding being
spent on ignition research were applied to life extension
programs, such programs could be accelerated or otherwise
improved, and how this funding change would impact the
stockpile stewardship program.
Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Global Security
Through Science Partnerships Program
This section would require that not more than $8.0 million
may be obligated or expended for the Global Security through
Science Partnerships Program (GSSP), formally known as the
Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) program,
until such time as the Secretary of Energy submits a report to
the appropriate congressional committees to complete the GSSP
program by the end of calendar year 2015.
The committee notes that the GIPP program was established
in 1994, originally known as the Initiatives for Proliferation
Prevention (IPP), to work with Russian Federation and other
former U.S.S.R. scientists and engineers in the early days
following the end of the cold war. The objectives of the IPP
program were to (1) engage weapons scientists and scientific
research and development institutes located in Russia and other
countries of the former U.S.S.R. in nonmilitary work by
supplementing their existing salaries; and (2) create
sustainable private sector jobs for former weapons scientists.
The committee is aware of the program's achievements, including
funding over 750 projects, engaging thousands of former weapons
scientists at over 180 facilities, and resulting in the
creation of 2,300 new peaceful high-tech jobs. However, the
Government Accountability Office issued a report in December
2007 stating the National Nuclear Security Administration had
not developed criteria for phasing out the program in Russia
and other countries of the former Soviet Union.
Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Center of
Excellence on Nuclear Security
This section would limit funds that may be obligated or
expended by the Secretary of Energy for fiscal year 2013 to not
more than $7.0 million for a Center of Excellence on Nuclear
Security in the People's Republic of China until the date on
which the Secretary of Energy reviews, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, and submits 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 certifying that current and
planned nonproliferation activities with China are not directly
or indirectly contributing to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons development and technology to other nations.
Section 3122--Two-Year Extension of Schedule for Disposition of
Weapons-Usable Plutonium at Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
This section would provide a 2-year extension to the
schedule for the disposition of weapons-usable plutonium at the
Savannah River Site, located in Aiken, South Carolina.
Subtitle C--Improvements to National Security Energy Laws
Section 3131--Improvements to the Atomic Energy Defense Act
This section would make changes to the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501) to streamline the statute, update
terminology, clarify definitions, and make technical
corrections.
Section 3132--Improvements to the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act
This section would make changes to the National Nuclear
Security Administration Act (Public Law 106-65) to streamline
the statute, repeal expired sections of the code, update
terminology, clarify definitions, and make technical
corrections.
Section 3133--Clarification of the Role of the Administrator for
Nuclear Security
This section would clarify the role of the Administrator
for Nuclear Security and reinforce the semi-autonomous nature
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) by
amending various sections of the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2401), the Atomic Energy Defense
Act (50 U.S.C. 2501), and the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7131). This section would clarify that the
Administrator is responsible for all programs, policies,
regulations, and rules of the NNSA. This section would further
clarify that the Secretary of Energy may disapprove any action,
policy, regulation, or rule of the Administrator if the
Secretary submits justification for such disapproval to the
congressional defense committees and a period of 15 days has
elapsed since such justification was submitted. This section
would also clarify that the Administrator has complete
authority to establish and conduct oversight of policies,
activities, and procedures of the NNSA without direction or
oversight by the Secretary, and establish that the Secretary's
authority to administer, enforce, or oversee the activities of
the NNSA would be limited to the disapproval authority
described above, unless otherwise specifically provided by law.
This section would also amend several statutes to transfer
authority for certain activities from the Secretary to the
Administrator.
In its 2009 report, the Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States recommended making NNSA
a fully autonomous agency reporting to the President through
the Secretary of Energy. The Commission recommended following
the example of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
which reports to the Secretary of Energy, and for which the
Secretary only has the authority to comment on and not
disapprove FERC's budget. Also in 2009, a study by The Henry L.
Stimson Center, ``Leveraging Science for Security: A Strategy
for the Nuclear Weapons Labs in the 21st Century,'' was highly
critical of both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the NNSA.
The Stimson Center Task Force concluded that the choices for
reform were clear, either ``initiate an extensive overhaul of
DOE/NNSA to achieve intended agency autonomy'' or ``create a
new independent agency with the institutional mechanisms and
oversight in place to achieve the envisioned transformation and
fully leverage the taxpayer's investments.'' Ultimately, the
Task Force ``strongly recommend[ed] creating a fully
independent agency . . . the Task Force proposes fully severing
NNSA and its Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,
including the Nevada Test Site, from DOE.''
The committee agrees with these and other recent
assessments that the degree of autonomy intended by the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act has not been
achieved. This section would strengthen the autonomy of NNSA
and reinforce the intent of the legislation.
Section 3134--Consolidated Reporting Requirements Relating to Nuclear
Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and Infrastructure
This section would consolidate several existing reporting
requirements in sections 4202, 4203, 4203A, 4204, 4207, and
4208 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (Public Law 106-65), as
well as section 3152 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and consolidate them
into a new section. This section would create a consolidated
requirement for the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense and other
appropriate officials, to develop and annually update a plan
for sustaining the nuclear weapons stockpile. The plan would be
required to cover, at a minimum, stockpile stewardship,
stockpile management, stockpile surveillance, program
direction, infrastructure modernization, human capital, and
nuclear test readiness. This section would require the
Administrator to submit a summary of this plan, including
identification of changes to the plan, to the congressional
defense committees in each even-numbered year, and a detailed
report on the plan in each odd-numbered year. Finally, this
section would require the Nuclear Weapons Council, in each odd-
numbered year, to submit to Congress an assessment of certain
aspects of the plan developed by the Administrator and
determine whether the plan adequately supports nuclear security
enterprise infrastructure modernization requirements.
Section 3135--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements
This section would repeal several recurring reporting
requirements. First, this section would repeal the requirement
in section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit a status report every
120 days to the congressional defense committees on the
environmental clean-up projects conducted by the Department of
Energy's Office of Environmental Management with funds provided
by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5). Second, this section would amend section 4604 of
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2704) to repeal the
requirement for the Secretary of Energy to annually submit to
Congress an update of the Department of Energy's defense
nuclear facilities workforce restructuring plan. Finally, this
section would amend section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2168) to eliminate the requirement that the
Secretary of Energy prepare a quarterly report that identifies
information determined to be Unclassified Controlled Nuclear
Information during the quarterly reporting period.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 3141--Notification of Nuclear Criticality and Non-Nuclear
Incidents
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security and the Secretary of Energy to notify the appropriate
congressional committees of any nuclear criticality incident
resulting from programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration or the defense environmental cleanup program
which results in an injury or fatality or results in the shut-
down, or partial shut-down, of a facility of the nuclear
security enterprise or of a facility of the Office of
Environmental Management, within 15 days of such occurrence.
The notification would include a description of the incident,
including the cause of the incident, any mission impacts, and
any corrective action taken in response to the incident. This
section would also require the Secretary and the Administrator
to maintain a record of these nuclear incidents and of any non-
nuclear incidents that result in serious bodily injury or a
fatality. Finally, this section would require the Secretary and
the Administrator to submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees within 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act detailing any such incidents that have
occurred in the last 10 years.
The committee continues to view nuclear and non-nuclear
safety as an important tenet of nuclear operations in the
context of potential changes in governance and management
structures.
Section 3142--Reports on Lifetime Extension Programs
This section would require that before proceeding beyond
phase 6.2 activities on any life extension activities, the
directors of the national nuclear weapons laboratories shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
lifetime extension program option for the nuclear physics
package, i.e., refurbishment, reuse, and replacement, of that
weapon and an assessment of why the option selected was
selected, including an assessment of pros and cons of the other
two options, including costs and other considerations. The lab
director's assessment would be submitted to the congressional
defense committees without change by the Administrator of
Nuclear Security, though he may if he chooses, submit his own
explanation.
The committee notes that section 1062 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) created the Congressional Commission on the Strategic
Posture of the United States. The committee is aware that the
commission stated that the ``basic approaches to refurbishment
and modernization are, in fact, not stark alternatives. Rather,
they are options along a spectrum. That spectrum is defined at
its two ends by the pure re-manufacturing of existing warheads
with existing components at one end and complete redesign and
new production of all system components at the other. In
between are various options to utilize existing components and
design solutions while mixing in new components and solutions
as needed. Different warheads may lend themselves to different
solutions along this spectrum. The decision on which approach
is best should be made on a case-by-case basis as the existing
stockpile of warheads ages.'' The committee is further aware
that the commission recommended that, ``[t]he decision on which
approach to refurbishing and modernizing the nuclear stockpile
is best should be made on a type-by-type basis as the existing
stockpile of warheads ages.''
Section 3143--National Academy of Sciences Study on Peer Review and
Design Competition Related To Nuclear Weapons
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to enter into an agreement with the National Academies
of Science to conduct a study of peer review and design
competition related to nuclear weapons. The National Academies
study would be required to include an assessment of: the
quality and effectiveness of peer review of designs,
development plans, engineering and science activities, and
priorities related to both nuclear and non-nuclear aspects of
nuclear weapons; incentives for effective peer-review; the
potential effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of alternative
methods of conducting peer review and design competition
related to both nuclear and non-nuclear aspects of nuclear
weapons (as compared to current methods); the known instances
where peer review practices and design competition succeeded or
failed to find problems or potential problems; and any other
related matters the Administrator considers appropriate. The
Administrator would be required to ensure the National
Academies receives full and timely cooperation from the
National Nuclear Security Administration, and its contractors,
for the purposes of conducting the study. The Administrator
would be required to submit the report and any recommendations
of the National Academies, together with any comments or
recommendations, to the congressional defense committees by
December 15, 2014.
The committee believes that peer review and design
competition are critical components of nuclear stockpile
stewardship and important means of ensuring the health and
reliability of the stockpile in the absence of nuclear
explosive testing. Because of its importance, the committee
believes an independent assessment is needed to understand the
effectiveness of current practices and a thorough analysis of
previous instances where peer review and design competition
either succeeded or failed to find problems. Further, in a
constrained fiscal environment where funds for peer review and
design competition may face significant pressure, the committee
seeks to better understand the effectiveness and efficiency of
alternative means of conducting peer review and design
competition.
Section 3144--Report on Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
This section would require the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees no later
than March 1 of each year from 2013 through 2015, detailing the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) program's budget,
objectives, and metrics. This section would also require an
identification and explanation of the foreign countries that
are sharing the cost burden of implementing DNN programs, a
description of the objectives and measurements for each DNN
program, a description of the threat of the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and how each DNN program counters these
threats, and a description of how the programs are prioritized
to meet the most urgent nonproliferation requirements.
The committee believes that the proliferation of nuclear
weapons poses a serious and urgent risk to U.S. national
security and impacts international stability. However, the
committee is concerned about the large uncommitted annual
balances in the DNN program and believes the NNSA must develop
and implement stronger financial oversight. The required report
would encourage the NNSA to identify and explain the
uncommitted balances, as well as the partnering of foreign
countries to meet these objectives.
Section 3145--Study on Reuse of Plutonium Pit
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to conduct a study of the plutonium pits available,
and those that may become available as a result of nuclear
weapon dismantlement, and assess the potential for reuse of
these pits in future life extension programs. The study would
include an analysis of: the feasibility and practicability of
potential full or partial reuse options; the benefits and risks
of reusing plutonium pits; the potential costs and cost
savings; and the impacts of reuse on the requirements for pit
manufacturing. This section would require the Administrator to
submit a report on the results of the study to the
congressional defense committees within 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 3151--Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Ensure Nuclear
Safety
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security and the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the methods
for certifying and overseeing nuclear safety at defense nuclear
facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) and the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental
Management use national and international standards and nuclear
industry best practices, including probabilistic risk
assessment, for parts, equipment, and systems for which
sufficient data exists to support such methods.
The committee notes that the nuclear safety assessment and
certification methods used by the Office of Environmental
Management and the NNSA for proven systems have lagged behind
more modern methods used by the nuclear power industry and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The highly prescriptive and
deterministic methods used by the Office of Environmental
Management and the NNSA have resulted in highly complex systems
of engineered controls when more modern safety assessment and
certification methods, such as probabilistic risk assessment,
may result in much simpler systems with equally robust safety
margins when sufficient data exists to support such methods.
The committee expects the Office of Environmental Management
and NNSA to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
understand and leverage lessons learned from the development
and application of modern safety assessment and certification
methods in both nuclear power reactors and other civilian
nuclear facilities. The committee notes that these methods may
not apply to one-of-a-kind parts, equipment, or systems.
Section 3152--Advice to President and Congress Regarding Safety,
Security, and Reliability of United States Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
and Nuclear Forces
This section would transfer section 7274p of title 42,
United States Code, and re-designate it as section 4215 of the
Atomic Energy Defense Act.
This section would also amend and clarify the underlying
statute to ensure that no person, including representatives of
the President, may prevent or constrain a director of a
national security laboratory, a director of a nuclear weapons
production facility, a member of the Nuclear Weapons Council,
or the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command from sharing his or
her professional views with the President, the National
Security Council, or Congress. This section would ensure that
such individuals can freely share their professional views with
national leaders on the safety, security, reliability, and
credibility of the nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear
forces, as well as the status of, and plans for, the
capabilities and infrastructure that support and sustain the
nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear forces. This section
would ensure that these individuals can provide classified
information on these matters directly to Congress, and it
requires the Administrator for Nuclear Security and the
Secretary of Defense to establish classified mail channels to
enable provision of such information.
The committee believes that all national leaders require
access to the objective, independent, and unfiltered
professional opinions of the Nation's nuclear weapons experts.
This section would ensure that the President, the National
Security Council, and Congress have such direct access.
Section 3153--Classification of Certain Restricted Data
This section would amend section 142 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2162) to permit the Secretary of Energy,
in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense or the Director of
National Intelligence, to restore certain information related
to the design of nuclear weapons back into the Restricted Data
category. This section would also make a technical correction
to subsection 142e. of the Atomic Energy Act by updating the
term ``Director of Central Intelligence'' to ``Director of
National Intelligence'' to conform section 142e. with the
transfer of functions contained in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458).
Section 3154--Independent Cost Assessments for Life Extension Programs,
New Nuclear Facilities, and Other Matters
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
(CAPE) and in coordination with the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, to assess the cost of options and alternatives for
new life extension programs and new nuclear facilities within
the nuclear security enterprise that are expected to cost more
than $500.0 million. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a copy of these cost assessments
to the congressional defense committees within 30 days of their
completion. Finally, this section would provide the
Administrator for Nuclear Security the authority to ask the
Secretary of Defense to seek a CAPE assessment on other
initiatives of the National Nuclear Security Administration
that are expected to cost more than $500.0 million.
The committee expects that an independent cost assessment
will increase accountability and inform diligent planning to
avoid budget overruns and schedule delays. The committee
expects that the Administrator and the Secretary will conduct a
cost estimate for upcoming life extension programs, including
those for the W78 and W88.
Section 3155--Assessment of Nuclear Weapon Pit Production Requirement
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command, to jointly assess the annual plutonium pit
production requirement needed to sustain a safe, secure, and
reliable nuclear weapon arsenal.
This section would require the Secretaries, not later than
180 days after enactment of this Act, to jointly submit a
report regarding this assessment to the congressional defense
committees. The report would be required to include an
explanation of the rationale and assumptions that led to the
current 50 to 80 plutonium pit production requirement; an
analysis of whether there are any changes to the current 50 to
80 pit production requirement; the implications for national
security, for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile
(including options for life extension programs), and costs for
various levels of pit production capacity (including annual
production capacity of 10-12 pits, 20-30 pits, 30-50 pits and
50-80 pits); and the implications of various pit production
capacities on the requirements for the nuclear weapon hedge or
reserve forces of the United States.
This section would require an update to this report if the
report submitted does not incorporate the results of the
currently ongoing Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study.
Such an update would be required to be submitted to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days of the date on
which the committees receive the results of the Nuclear Posture
Review Implementation Study. Finally, this section would
require that the report and any update be submitted in
unclassified form, but allows a classified annex if necessary.
Section 3156--Intellectual Property Related To Uranium Enrichment
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
make available, from the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2013, not
more than $150.0 million for the development and demonstration
of domestic national security-related enrichment technologies.
Thirty days before making such funds available for these
purposes, the Secretary of Energy would be required to certify
to the congressional defense committees that such funds are
needed for national security purposes and describe what those
purposes are. If the Secretary chooses to make such funds
available, this section would require the Secretary to utilize
merit selection procedures and execute an agreement with the
recipient of such funds. The agreement would include a
requirement for the recipient to achieve specific technical
criteria by dates not later than June 30, 2014, and require
that immediately upon execution of such agreement that the
recipient grant to the Federal Government a royalty-free, non-
exclusive license in all enrichment-related intellectual
property and associated technical data owned, licensed, or
otherwise controller by the recipient. This section would also
require that any existing agreement between the Secretary of
Energy and the recipient be amended to permit the Secretary to
use or allow third parties to use such intellectual property
and associated technical data for national defense purposes.
Furthermore, this section would require the recipient to
surrender custody, possession, and control of all property or
equipment owned or leased by the recipient that is associated
with the enrichment technology should the Secretary determine
that the technical criteria established by the Secretary in the
agreement are not achieved by the agreed dates.
Finally, this section would apply the limitations of this
section to funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year
2013 by this Act for development and demonstration of domestic
national security-related enrichment technology, funds
otherwise made available in fiscal year 2013 or any year
thereafter, and it would stipulate that the requirements of
this section do not apply to the issuance of loan guarantees
under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16513).
Section 3157--Sense of Congress on Competition and Fees Related to the
Management and Operating Contracts of the Nuclear Security Enterprise
This section would express a sense of Congress that:
(1) in the past decade, competition of the management
and operating contracts for the national security
laboratories has resulted in significant increases in
fees paid to the contractors--funding that otherwise
could be used to support programs and mission
activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration;
(2) competition of the management and operating
contracts of the nuclear security enterprise is an
important mechanism to help realize cost savings, seek
efficiencies, improve performance, and hold contractors
accountable;
(3) when the Administrator for Nuclear Security
considers it appropriate to achieve these goals, the
Administrator should conduct competition of these
contracts while recognizing the unique nature of
federally funded research and development centers; and
(4) the Administrator should ensure that fixed fees
and performance-based fees contained in management and
operating contracts are as low as possible to maintain
a focus on national service while attracting high-
quality contractors and achieving the goals of the
competition.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $29.4 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2013. The
committee recommends $31.4 million, an increase of $2.0 million
to the budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2013.
Section 3202--Improvements to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board
The section would amend the enabling statute of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) to provide
congressional direction regarding the DNFSB's operation,
clarify the DNFSB's mission, and improve collaboration between
the DNFSB and the Department of Energy.
First, this section would clarify that each member of the
DNFSB has equal responsibility and authority for establishing
decisions and determining certain actions of the DNFSB, that
each member must have full and simultaneous access to all
information related to the DNFSB, that each member shall have
one vote, that a quorum of members is needed for certain
actions, and that each member of the DNFSB may propose
individuals for senior staff positions and require a
determination of the DNFSB on whether the individual will be
appointed. This section would also require that each member of
the DNFSB be provided funds to employ at least one technical
advisor to directly support the member, and that such advisor
would not be subject to the appointment, direction, or
supervision of the DNFSB chairman.
Second, this section would clarify that the mission of the
DNFSB is to provide independent analysis, advice, and
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to ensure that risks
to public health and safety at defense nuclear facilities are
as low as reasonably practicable and that public health and
safety are adequately protected. In any recommendations
submitted to the Secretary, the DNFSB would be required to
consider, and specifically assess, the technical and economic
feasibility, the costs and benefits, and the practicability of
implementing its recommended measures.
Third, this section would revise the statutory authority
for the DNFSB to submit recommendations to the Secretary of
Energy, creating a more collaborative recommendation process in
which the DNFSB provides a draft recommendation to the
Secretary, who then has at least 45 days to provide comments on
the recommendation. After this comment period, the DNFSB may
choose to formalize and publish the recommendation in the
Federal Register and seek public comment. After such
publication, the Secretary of Energy would have at least 60
days to accept or reject the recommendation and publish a
statement in the Federal Register regarding the recommendation
and why it was accepted or rejected. If a recommendation is
rejected, the DNFSB may transmit a letter to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services. If a recommendation is accepted, the Secretary would
be required to submit an implementation plan to the DNFSB
within 120 days. Further, if the DNFSB submits a recommendation
regarding an imminent or severe threat to public health and
safety, the Secretary of Energy would have 15 days to provide
comments to the President on the recommendation.
Finally, this section would require certain reports of the
DNFSB to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services, and the DNFSB to
enter into an agreement with a Federal agency to procure the
services of the Inspector General of that agency for the DNFSB.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $14.9 million for fiscal year
2013 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and
Oil Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security
Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2013
This section would authorize appropriations for the
national security aspects of the Merchant Marine for fiscal
year 2013.
Section 3502--Application of the Federal Acquisition Regulation
This section would clarify that the appropriate version of
the Federal Acquisition Regulations would be applied to a
contract for purchase of recycling services is the version in
effect at the time the contract is awarded.
Section 3503--Procurement of Ship Disposal
This section would include ship disposal and ship disposal
related contracts in the Maritime Administration's exemption
from Federal procurement law, and would eliminate the word
``merchant'' before the word ``vessels'', making it consistent
with the disposal authority for merchant vessels and vessels
capable of being converted to merchant use.
Section 3504--Limitation of National Defense Reserve Fleet Vessels to
Those Over 1,500 Gross Tons
This section would clarify that vessels in the National
Defense Reserve Fleet are to be 1,500 gross tons or greater and
those vessels the Secretary of Transportation determines are
appropriate to be included in the National Defense Reserve
Fleet. This section would also provide the Maritime
Administration the flexibility to more efficiently dispose of
vessels smaller than 1,500 gross tons through the vessel sales
process provided by the General Services Administration, and
give the Secretary the option of determining the best practical
options for the disposal of smaller vessels.
Section 3505--Donation of Excess Fuel to Maritime Academies
This section would authorize the Maritime Administration,
with the concurrence of the owner of the fuel or excess
equipment, to donate excess fuel on National Defense Reserve
Fleet vessels to the State Maritime Academies to carry out
training. In the case of Ready Reserve Force vessels, the owner
of the vessels and the fuel would be the Secretary of the Navy.
Section 3506--Clarification of Heading
This section would change the title of section 57103 of
title 46, United States Code, from ``Sale of Obsolete Vessels
in the National Defense Reserve Fleet'' to ``Donation of Non-
Retention Vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet''. This
would be a purely technical correction.
Section 3507--Transfer of Vessels into the National Defense Reserve
Fleet
This section would clarify the Maritime Administration's
authority to receive vessels from the Armed Forces and other
Federal entities, enhancing the Administration's ability to
efficiently dispose of obsolete Government vessels.
Section 3508--Amendments Relating To the National Defense Reserve Fleet
This section would provide the Maritime Administration the
flexibility in determining when to conduct activations and sea
trials of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet, while
still ensuring readiness in accordance with Department of
Defense readiness requirements.
Section 3509--Extension of Maritime Security Fleet Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to extend existing operating agreements in the
Maritime Security Program through September 30, 2025. For those
agreements where the contractor does not wish to enter into an
extension, the Secretary would be authorized to award the
operating agreement to a new contractor, on the basis of
military need, for the new vessel in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense. This section would include periodic
increases to the stipend for participants through fiscal year
2025 to account for inflation.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables
This section would provide for the allocation of funds
among programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the
tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming
guidance in accordance with established procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, this section would also require that a decision by
an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the
requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10,
United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law.
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
FIXED WING
1 UTILITY F/W 2 18,639 2 18,639
AIRCRAFT.
3 MQ-1 UAV....... 19 518,088 19 518,088
4 RQ-11 (RAVEN).. 234 25,798 234 25,798
ROTARY
6 HELICOPTER, 34 271,983 34 271,983
LIGHT UTILITY
(LUH).
7 AH-64 APACHE 40 577,115 40 577,115
BLOCK IIIA
REMAN.
8 ADVANCE 107,707 107,707
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
9 AH-64 APACHE 8 153,993 8 153,993
BLOCK IIIB NEW
BUILD.
10 ADVANCE 146,121 146,121
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
13 UH-60 BLACKHAWK 59 1,107,087 59 1,107,087
M MODEL (MYP).
14 ADVANCE 115,113 115,113
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
15 CH-47 38 1,076,036 38 1,076,036
HELICOPTER.
16 ADVANCE 83,346 83,346
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
18 MQ-1 PAYLOAD-- 231,508 231,508
UAS.
20 GUARDRAIL MODS 16,272 16,272
(MIP).
21 MULTI SENSOR 4,294 4,294
ABN RECON
(MIP).
22 AH-64 MODS..... 178,805 178,805
23 CH-47 CARGO 39,135 39,135
HELICOPTER
MODS (MYP).
24 UTILITY/CARGO 24,842 24,842
AIRPLANE MODS.
26 UTILITY 73,804 73,804
HELICOPTER
MODS.
27 KIOWA WARRIOR 192,484 192,484
MODS.
29 NETWORK AND 190,789 190,789
MISSION PLAN.
30 COMMS, NAV 133,191 133,191
SURVEILLANCE.
31 GATM ROLLUP.... 87,280 87,280
32 RQ-7 UAV MODS.. 104,339 104,339
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
34 AIRCRAFT 34,037 34,037
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.
36 CMWS........... 127,751 127,751
OTHER SUPPORT
37 AVIONICS 4,886 4,886
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
38 COMMON GROUND 82,511 82,511
EQUIPMENT.
39 AIRCREW 77,381 77,381
INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS.
40 AIR TRAFFIC 47,235 47,235
CONTROL.
41 INDUSTRIAL 1,643 1,643
FACILITIES.
42 LAUNCHER, 2.75 516 516
ROCKET.
TOTAL 434 5,853,729 434 5,853,729
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
1 PATRIOT SYSTEM 84 646,590 50,000 84 696,590
SUMMARY.
Additional [50,000]
PAC-3
missiles.
2 MSE MISSILE.... 12,850 12,850
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
4 HELLFIRE SYS 1,401 10,000 11,401
SUMMARY.
Program [10,000]
increase.
ANTI-TANK/
ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
5 JAVELIN (AAWS- 400 81,121 400 81,121
M) SYSTEM
SUMMARY.
6 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,403 64,712 1,403 64,712
SUMMARY.
7 ADVANCE 19,931 19,931
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
8 GUIDED MLRS 1,608 218,679 1,608 218,679
ROCKET (GMLRS).
9 MLRS REDUCED 2,430 18,767 2,430 18,767
RANGE PRACTICE
ROCKETS (RRPR).
10 HIGH MOBILITY 12,051 12,051
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM.
MODIFICATIONS
11 PATRIOT MODS... 199,565 199,565
13 MLRS MODS...... 2,466 2,466
14 HIMARS 6,068 6,068
MODIFICATIONS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
16 SPARES AND 7,864 7,864
REPAIR PARTS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
17 AIR DEFENSE 3,864 3,864
TARGETS.
18 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,560 1,560
$5 MILLION
(MISSILES).
19 PRODUCTION BASE 5,200 5,200
SUPPORT.
TOTAL 5,925 1,302,689 60,000 5,925 1,362,689
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 STRYKER VEHICLE 58 286,818 58 286,818
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
3 STRYKER (MOD).. 60,881 60,881
4 FIST VEHICLE 57,257 57,257
(MOD).
5 BRADLEY PROGRAM 148,193 140,000 288,193
(MOD).
Program [140,000]
increase.
6 HOWITZER, MED 10,341 10,341
SP FT 155MM
M109A6 (MOD).
7 PALADIN PIM MOD 17 206,101 17 206,101
IN SERVICE.
8 IMPROVED 31 107,909 20 62,000 51 169,909
RECOVERY
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).
Program [20] [62,000]
increase.
9 ASSAULT 10 50,039 10 50,039
BREACHER
VEHICLE.
10 M88 FOV MODS... 29,930 29,930
11 M1 ABRAMS TANK 129,090 129,090
(MOD).
12 ABRAMS UPGRADE 74,433 181,000 255,433
PROGRAM.
Program [181,000]
increase.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
13 PRODUCTION BASE 1,145 1,145
SUPPORT (TCV-
WTCV).
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT
VEHICLES
14 INTEGRATED AIR 506 -506 0
BURST WEAPON
SYSTEM FAMILY.
XM25 [-506]
funding
ahead of
need.
17 LIGHTWEIGHT .50 610 25,183 610 25,183
CALIBER
MACHINE GUN.
19 MORTAR SYSTEMS. 8,104 8,104
21 XM320 GRENADE 2,280 14,096 2,280 14,096
LAUNCHER
MODULE (GLM).
24 CARBINE........ 12,000 21,272 12,000 21,272
25 SHOTGUN, 2,107 6,598 2,107 6,598
MODULAR
ACCESSORY
SYSTEM (MASS).
26 COMMON REMOTELY 240 56,725 240 56,725
OPERATED
WEAPONS
STATION.
27 HOWITZER LT WT 13,827 13,827
155MM (T).
MOD OF WEAPONS
AND OTHER
COMBAT VEH
29 M777 MODS...... 26,843 26,843
30 M4 CARBINE MODS 27,243 27,243
31 M2 50 CAL 39,974 39,974
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
32 M249 SAW 4,996 4,996
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
33 M240 MEDIUM 6,806 6,806
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
34 SNIPER RIFLES 14,113 14,113
MODIFICATIONS.
35 M119 20,727 20,727
MODIFICATIONS.
36 M16 RIFLE MODS. 3,306 3,306
37 MODIFICATIONS 3,072 3,072
LESS THAN
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
38 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,026 2,026
$5 MILLION
(WOCV-WTCV).
39 PRODUCTION BASE 10,115 10,115
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).
40 INDUSTRIAL 442 442
PREPAREDNESS.
41 SMALL ARMS 2,378 2,378
EQUIPMENT
(SOLDIER ENH
PROG).
SPARES
42 SPARES AND 31,217 31,217
REPAIR PARTS
(WTCV).
TOTAL 17,353 1,501,706 20 382,494 17,373 1,884,200
PROCUREMEN
T OF
W&TCV,
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM
CAL AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, 158,313 -34,800 123,513
ALL TYPES.
Unit cost [-34,800]
savings.
2 CTG, 7.62MM, 91,438 91,438
ALL TYPES.
3 CTG, HANDGUN, 8,954 8,954
ALL TYPES.
4 CTG, .50 CAL, 109,604 109,604
ALL TYPES.
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 4,041 4,041
TYPES.
6 CTG, 25MM, ALL 12,654 12,654
TYPES.
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 72,154 -18,000 54,154
TYPES.
Pricing [-18,000]
adjustments
for target
practice
round and
light-
weight dual-
purpose
round.
8 CTG, 40MM, ALL 60,138 60,138
TYPES.
MORTAR
AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, 44,375 44,375
ALL TYPES.
10 81MM MORTAR, 27,471 27,471
ALL TYPES.
11 120MM MORTAR, 87,811 87,811
ALL TYPES.
TANK AMMUNITION
12 CARTRIDGES, 112,380 112,380
TANK, 105MM
AND 120MM, ALL
TYPES.
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY 50,861 50,861
CARTRIDGES,
75MM AND
105MM, ALL TYP.
14 ARTILLERY 26,227 26,227
PROJECTILE,
155MM, ALL
TYPES.
15 PROJ 155MM 110,329 -55,000 55,329
EXTENDED RANGE
XM982.
Excalibur I- [-55,000]
b round
schedule
delay.
16 ARTILLERY 43,924 43,924
PROPELLANTS,
FUZES AND
PRIMERS, ALL.
MINES
17 MINES & 3,775 3,775
CLEARING
CHARGES, ALL
TYPES.
NETWORKED
MUNITIONS
18 SPIDER NETWORK 17,408 17,408
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
ROCKETS
19 SHOULDER 1,005 1,005
LAUNCHED
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
20 ROCKET, HYDRA 123,433 123,433
70, ALL TYPES.
OTHER
AMMUNITION
21 DEMOLITION 35,189 35,189
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
22 GRENADES, ALL 33,477 33,477
TYPES.
23 SIGNALS, ALL 9,991 9,991
TYPES.
24 SIMULATORS, ALL 10,388 10,388
TYPES.
MISCELLANEOUS
25 AMMO 19,383 19,383
COMPONENTS,
ALL TYPES.
26 NON-LETHAL 7,336 7,336
AMMUNITION,
ALL TYPES.
27 CAD/PAD ALL 6,641 6,641
TYPES.
28 ITEMS LESS THAN 15,092 15,092
$5 MILLION.
29 AMMUNITION 15,692 15,692
PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT.
30 FIRST 14,107 14,107
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO).
31 CLOSEOUT 106 106
LIABILITIES.
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
32 PROVISION OF 220,171 220,171
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
33 CONVENTIONAL 182,461 182,461
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATI
ON, ALL.
34 ARMS INITIATIVE 3,377 3,377
TOTAL 1,739,706 -107,800 1,631,906
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, ARMY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
1 SEMITRAILERS, 27 7,097 27 7,097
FLATBED:.
2 FAMILY OF 1,248 346,115 1,248 346,115
MEDIUM
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV).
3 FIRETRUCKS & 19,292 19,292
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING
EQUIP.
4 FAMILY OF HEAVY 1,534 52,933 1,534 52,933
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
(FHTV).
5 PLS ESP........ 18,035 18,035
9 TRUCK, TRACTOR, 12 3,619 12 3,619
LINE HAUL,
M915/M916.
10 HVY EXPANDED 60 26,859 60 26,859
MOBILE
TACTICAL TRUCK
EXT SERV.
12 TACTICAL 950 69,163 950 69,163
WHEELED
VEHICLE
PROTECTION
KITS.
13 MODIFICATION OF 91,754 91,754
IN SVC EQUIP.
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
18 PASSENGER 2,548 2,548
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
19 NONTACTICAL 16,791 16,791
VEHICLES,
OTHER.
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
20 JOINT COMBAT 7,038 10,061 7,038 10,061
IDENTIFICATION
MARKING SYSTEM.
21 WIN-T--GROUND 2,166 892,635 -20,000 2,166 872,635
FORCES
TACTICAL
NETWORK.
Program [-20,000]
adjustment.
22 SIGNAL 45,626 45,626
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
23 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,143 5,143
(USREDCOM).
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
24 DEFENSE 23 151,636 23 151,636
ENTERPRISE
WIDEBAND
SATCOM SYSTEMS.
25 TRANSPORTABLE 6,822 6,822
TACTICAL
COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS.
26 SHF TERM....... 9,108 9,108
28 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 3,592 27,353 3,592 27,353
POSITIONING
SYSTEM (SPACE).
29 SMART-T (SPACE) 98,656 98,656
31 GLOBAL BRDCST 47,131 47,131
SVC--GBS.
32 MOD OF IN-SVC 39 23,281 39 23,281
EQUIP (TAC
SAT).
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
34 ARMY GLOBAL CMD 10,848 10,848
& CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS).
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
35 ARMY DATA 979 979
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (DATA
RADIO).
36 JOINT TACTICAL 11,059 556,250 -35,000 11,059 521,250
RADIO SYSTEM.
Program [-35,000]
adjustment.
37 MID-TIER 86,219 -10,000 76,219
NETWORKING
VEHICULAR
RADIO (MNVR).
Program [-10,000]
adjustment.
38 RADIO TERMINAL 7,798 7,798
SET, MIDS
LVT(2).
39 SINCGARS FAMILY 9,001 9,001
40 AMC CRITICAL 108 24,601 108 24,601
ITEMS--OPA2.
41 TRACTOR DESK... 7,779 7,779
43 SPIDER APLA 34,365 -15,000 19,365
REMOTE CONTROL
UNIT.
Program [-15,000]
delay.
44 SOLDIER 1,833 1,833
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM COMM/
ELECTRONICS.
45 TACTICAL 12,984 12,984
COMMUNICATIONS
AND PROTECTIVE
SYSTEM.
47 GUNSHOT 46 2,332 46 2,332
DETECTION
SYSTEM (GDS).
48 RADIO, IMPROVED 1,132 1,132
HF (COTS)
FAMILY.
49 MEDICAL COMM 2,535 22,899 2,535 22,899
FOR CBT
CASUALTY CARE
(MC4).
COMM--INTELLIGE
NCE COMM
51 CI AUTOMATION 1,564 1,564
ARCHITECTURE.
52 RESERVE CA/MISO 1,540 28,781 1,540 28,781
GPF EQUIPMENT.
INFORMATION
SECURITY
53 TSEC--ARMY KEY 6,087 23,432 6,087 23,432
MGT SYS (AKMS).
54 INFORMATION 2,469 43,897 2,469 43,897
SYSTEM
SECURITY
PROGRAM-ISSP.
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
56 TERRESTRIAL 2,891 2,891
TRANSMISSION.
57 BASE SUPPORT 13,872 13,872
COMMUNICATIONS.
58 WW TECH CON IMP 9,595 9,595
PROG (WWTCIP).
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
59 INFORMATION 142,133 142,133
SYSTEMS.
61 INSTALLATION 57,727 57,727
INFO
INFRASTRUCTURE
MOD PROGRAM.
62 PENTAGON 5,000 5,000
INFORMATION
MGT AND
TELECOM.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACT INT REL
ACT (TIARA)
65 JTT/CIBS-M..... 1,641 1,641
66 PROPHET GROUND. 13 48,797 13 48,797
69 DCGS-A (MIP)... 1,743 184,007 1,743 184,007
70 JOINT TACTICAL 5 2,680 5 2,680
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS).
71 TROJAN (MIP)... 21,483 21,483
72 MOD OF IN-SVC 2,412 2,412
EQUIP (INTEL
SPT) (MIP).
73 CI HUMINT AUTO 7,077 7,077
REPRINTING AND
COLLECTION.
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW)
75 LIGHTWEIGHT 43 72,594 43 72,594
COUNTER MORTAR
RADAR.
76 CREW........... 15,446 15,446
78 COUNTERINTELLIG 1,470 1,470
ENCE/SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
79 CI 1,368 1,368
MODERNIZATION.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
80 FAAD GBS....... 7,980 7,980
81 SENTINEL MODS.. 70 33,444 70 33,444
82 SENSE THROUGH 6,212 6,212
THE WALL
(STTW).
83 NIGHT VISION 8,687 166,516 8,687 166,516
DEVICES.
85 NIGHT VISION, 82,162 82,162
THERMAL WPN
SIGHT.
86 SMALL TACTICAL 20,717 20,717
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF.
89 GREEN LASER 1,014 1,014
INTERDICTION
SYSTEM (GLIS).
90 INDIRECT FIRE 29,881 29,881
PROTECTION
FAMILY OF
SYSTEMS.
91 PROFILER....... 136 12,482 136 12,482
92 MOD OF IN-SVC 3,075 3,075
EQUIP
(FIREFINDER
RADARS).
94 JOINT BATTLE 1,032 141,385 1,032 141,385
COMMAND--PLATF
ORM (JBC-P).
96 MOD OF IN-SVC 22,403 22,403
EQUIP (LLDR).
98 MORTAR FIRE 29,505 29,505
CONTROL SYSTEM.
99 COUNTERFIRE 13 244,409 13 244,409
RADARS.
100 ENHANCED SENSOR 2,426 2,426
& MONITORING
SYSTEM (WMD).
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
101 TACTICAL 133 30,196 133 30,196
OPERATIONS
CENTERS.
102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 1,642 58,903 1,642 58,903
FAMILY.
103 BATTLE COMMAND 445 8,111 445 8,111
SUSTAINMENT
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
104 FAAD C2........ 5,031 5,031
105 AIR & MSL 12 64,144 12 64,144
DEFENSE
PLANNING &
CONTROL SYS.
106 KNIGHT FAMILY.. 11,999 11,999
107 LIFE CYCLE 1,853 1,853
SOFTWARE
SUPPORT (LCSS).
108 AUTOMATIC 14,377 14,377
IDENTIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY.
111 NETWORK 59,821 59,821
MANAGEMENT
INITIALIZATION
AND SERVICE.
112 MANEUVER 721 51,228 721 51,228
CONTROL SYSTEM
(MCS).
113 SINGLE ARMY 5,976 176,901 5,976 176,901
LOGISTICS
ENTERPRISE
(SALE).
114 RECONNAISSANCE 15,209 15,209
AND SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET.
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
115 ARMY TRAINING 8,866 8,866
MODERNIZATION.
116 AUTOMATED DATA 129,438 129,438
PROCESSING
EQUIP.
117 GENERAL FUND 9,184 9,184
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYS
FAM.
118 CSS 2,062 20,639 2,062 20,639
COMMUNICATIONS.
119 RESERVE 35,493 35,493
COMPONENT
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUDIO VISUAL
SYS (A/V)
120 ITEMS LESS THAN 8,467 8,467
$5 MILLION (A/
V).
121 ITEMS LESS THAN 89 5,309 89 5,309
$5 MILLION.
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
122 PRODUCTION BASE 586 586
SUPPORT (C-E).
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
124A CLASSIFIED 3,435 3,435
PROGRAMS.
CHEMICAL
DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
126 FAMILY OF NON- 1,562 3,960 1,562 3,960
LETHAL
EQUIPMENT
(FNLE).
127 BASE DEFENSE 637 4,374 637 4,374
SYSTEMS (BDS).
128 CBRN SOLDIER 219 9,259 219 9,259
PROTECTION.
BRIDGING
EQUIPMENT
130 TACTICAL 7 35,499 7 35,499
BRIDGING.
131 TACTICAL 68 32,893 68 32,893
BRIDGE, FLOAT-
RIBBON.
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
134 ROBOTIC COMBAT 29,106 29,106
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS).
135 EXPLOSIVE 522 25,459 522 25,459
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).
136 REMOTE 364 8,044 364 8,044
DEMOLITION
SYSTEMS.
137 < $5M, 3,698 3,698
COUNTERMINE
EQUIPMENT.
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
138 HEATERS AND 1,332 12,210 1,332 12,210
ECU'S.
139 SOLDIER 6,522 6,522
ENHANCEMENT.
140 PERSONNEL 11,222 11,222
RECOVERY
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS).
141 GROUND SOLDIER 5,226 103,317 5,226 103,317
SYSTEM.
144 FIELD FEEDING 228 27,417 228 27,417
EQUIPMENT.
145 CARGO AERIAL 8,891 52,065 8,891 52,065
DEL &
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE
SYSTEM.
146 MORTUARY 2,358 2,358
AFFAIRS
SYSTEMS.
147 FAMILY OF ENGR 266 31,573 266 31,573
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION
SETS.
148 ITEMS LESS THAN 818 14,093 818 14,093
$5 MILLION.
PETROLEUM
EQUIPMENT
149 DISTRIBUTION 208 36,266 208 36,266
SYSTEMS,
PETROLEUM &
WATER.
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
150 COMBAT SUPPORT 1,938 34,101 1,938 34,101
MEDICAL.
151 MEDEVAC MISSON 20,540 20,540
EQUIPMENT
PACKAGE (MEP).
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
152 MOBILE 20 2,495 20 2,495
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEMS.
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
154 GRADER, ROAD 2,028 2,028
MTZD, HVY, 6X4
(CCE).
156 SCRAPERS, 9 6,146 9 6,146
EARTHMOVING.
157 MISSION 40 31,200 40 31,200
MODULES--ENGIN
EERING.
161 TRACTOR, FULL 61 20,867 61 20,867
TRACKED.
162 ALL TERRAIN 1 4,003 1 4,003
CRANES.
163 PLANT, ASPHALT 1 3,679 1 3,679
MIXING.
164 HIGH MOBILITY 76 30,042 76 30,042
ENGINEER
EXCAVATOR
(HMEE).
165 ENHANCED RAPID 182 13,725 182 13,725
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION
CAPA.
166 CONST EQUIP ESP 47 13,351 47 13,351
167 ITEMS LESS THAN 9,134 9,134
$5 MILLION
(CONST EQUIP).
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATI
ON EQUIPMENT
170 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,552 10,552
$5 MILLION
(FLOAT/RAIL).
GENERATORS
171 GENERATORS AND 2,074 60,302 2,074 60,302
ASSOCIATED
EQUIP.
MATERIAL
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
173 FAMILY OF 64 5,895 64 5,895
FORKLIFTS.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
175 COMBAT TRAINING 339 104,649 339 104,649
CENTERS
SUPPORT.
176 TRAINING 125,251 125,251
DEVICES,
NONSYSTEM.
177 CLOSE COMBAT 8 19,984 8 19,984
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
178 AVIATION 10,977 10,977
COMBINED ARMS
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
179 GAMING 4,056 4,056
TECHNOLOGY IN
SUPPORT OF
ARMY TRAINING.
TEST MEASURE
AND DIG
EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
180 CALIBRATION 3 10,494 3 10,494
SETS EQUIPMENT.
181 INTEGRATED 1,674 45,508 1,674 45,508
FAMILY OF TEST
EQUIPMENT
(IFTE).
182 TEST EQUIPMENT 2,786 24,334 2,786 24,334
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD).
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
183 RAPID EQUIPPING 5,078 5,078
SOLDIER
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
184 PHYSICAL 46,301 46,301
SECURITY
SYSTEMS (OPA3).
185 BASE LEVEL 1,373 1,373
COMMON
EQUIPMENT.
186 MODIFICATION OF 248 59,141 248 59,141
IN-SVC
EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3).
187 PRODUCTION BASE 2,446 2,446
SUPPORT (OTH).
188 SPECIAL 206 12,920 206 12,920
EQUIPMENT FOR
USER TESTING.
189 AMC CRITICAL 1,141 19,180 1,141 19,180
ITEMS OPA3.
190 TRACTOR YARD... 7,368 7,368
191 UNMANNED GROUND 311 83,937 311 83,937
VEHICLE.
OPA2
193 INITIAL SPARES-- 34 64,507 34 64,507
C&E.
TOTAL 94,966 6,326,245 -80,000 94,966 6,246,245
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND
STAFF AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
04 OPERATIONS..... 227,414 -227,414 0
Transfer of [-227,414]
funds to
title 15.
TOTAL 227,414 -227,414 0
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE
DEV DEFEAT
FUND.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
1 EA-18G......... 12 1,027,443 -30,000 12 997,443
Cost growth- [-30,000]
CFE
electronics
, non-
recurring
costs.
2 ADVANCE 45,000 45,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Program [45,000]
increase.
3 F/A-18E/F 26 2,035,131 -46,000 26 1,989,131
(FIGHTER)
HORNET.
Cost growth- [-46,000]
CFE
electronics
, support
costs.
4 ADVANCE 30,296 30,296
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
5 JOINT STRIKE 4 1,007,632 4 1,007,632
FIGHTER CV.
6 ADVANCE 65,180 65,180
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
7 JSF STOVL...... 6 1,404,737 6 1,404,737
8 ADVANCE 106,199 106,199
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
9 V-22 (MEDIUM 17 1,303,120 17 1,303,120
LIFT).
10 ADVANCE 154,202 154,202
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
11 H-1 UPGRADES 27 720,933 27 720,933
(UH-1Y/AH-1Z).
12 ADVANCE 69,658 69,658
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
13 MH-60S (MYP)... 18 384,792 18 384,792
14 ADVANCE 69,277 69,277
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
15 MH-60R (MYP)... 19 656,866 5 170,000 24 826,866
Cruiser [5] [170,000]
Retention--
Restore 5
helicopters.
16 ADVANCE 185,896 185,896
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
17 P-8A POSEIDON.. 13 2,420,755 13 2,420,755
18 ADVANCE 325,679 325,679
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
19 E-2D ADV 5 861,498 5 861,498
HAWKEYE.
20 ADVANCE 123,179 123,179
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
22 JPATS.......... 33 278,884 33 278,884
OTHER AIRCRAFT
23 KC-130J........ 3,000 3,000
24 ADVANCE 22,995 22,995
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
25 ADVANCE 51,124 51,124
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
26 MQ-8 UAV....... 6 124,573 6 124,573
27 STUASL0 UAV.... 5 9,593 5 9,593
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
28 EA-6 SERIES.... 30,062 30,062
29 AEA SYSTEMS.... 49,999 49,999
30 AV-8 SERIES.... 38,703 38,703
31 ADVERSARY...... 4,289 4,289
32 F-18 SERIES.... 647,306 647,306
33 H-46 SERIES.... 2,343 2,343
34 AH-1W SERIES... 8,721 8,721
35 H-53 SERIES.... 45,567 45,567
36 SH-60 SERIES... 83,527 83,527
37 H-1 SERIES..... 6,508 6,508
38 EP-3 SERIES.... 66,374 66,374
39 P-3 SERIES..... 148,405 148,405
40 E-2 SERIES..... 16,322 16,322
41 TRAINER A/C 34,284 34,284
SERIES.
42 C-2A........... 4,743 4,743
43 C-130 SERIES... 60,302 60,302
44 FEWSG.......... 670 670
45 CARGO/TRANSPORT 26,311 26,311
A/C SERIES.
46 E-6 SERIES..... 158,332 158,332
47 EXECUTIVE 58,163 58,163
HELICOPTERS
SERIES.
48 SPECIAL PROJECT 12,421 12,421
AIRCRAFT.
49 T-45 SERIES.... 64,488 64,488
50 POWER PLANT 21,569 21,569
CHANGES.
51 JPATS SERIES... 1,552 1,552
52 AVIATION LIFE 2,473 2,473
SUPPORT MODS.
53 COMMON ECM 114,690 114,690
EQUIPMENT.
54 COMMON AVIONICS 96,183 96,183
CHANGES.
56 ID SYSTEMS..... 39,846 39,846
57 P-8 SERIES..... 5,302 5,302
58 MAGTF EW FOR 34,127 34,127
AVIATION.
59 RQ-7 SERIES.... 49,324 49,324
60 V-22 (TILT/ 95,856 95,856
ROTOR ACFT)
OSPREY.
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
61 SPARES AND 1,166,430 -40,000 1,126,430
REPAIR PARTS.
Spares cost [-40,000]
growth--F-3
5C, F-35B,
E-2D.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT EQUIP
& FACILITIES
62 COMMON GROUND 387,195 387,195
EQUIPMENT.
63 AIRCRAFT 23,469 23,469
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
64 WAR CONSUMABLES 43,383 43,383
65 OTHER 3,399 3,399
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
66 SPECIAL SUPPORT 32,274 32,274
EQUIPMENT.
67 FIRST 1,742 1,742
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
TOTAL 191 17,129,296 5 99,000 196 17,228,296
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS 1,224,683 1,224,683
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE 5,553 5,553
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
STRATEGIC
MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK....... 196 308,970 196 308,970
TACTICAL
MISSILES
4 AMRAAM......... 67 102,683 10,000 67 112,683
Program [10,000]
increase.
5 SIDEWINDER..... 150 80,226 150 80,226
6 JSOW........... 280 127,609 10,200 280 137,809
Program [10,200]
increase.
7 STANDARD 94 399,482 94 399,482
MISSILE.
8 RAM............ 62 66,769 62 66,769
9 HELLFIRE....... 998 74,501 17,400 998 91,901
Program [17,400]
increase.
11 AERIAL TARGETS. 61,518 61,518
12 OTHER MISSILE 3,585 3,585
SUPPORT.
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
13 ESSM........... 37 58,194 37 58,194
14 HARM MODS...... 100 86,721 100 86,721
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
16 WEAPONS 2,014 2,014
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
17 FLEET SATELLITE 21,454 21,454
COMM FOLLOW-ON.
ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
18 ORDNANCE 54,945 54,945
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
19 SSTD........... 2,700 2,700
20 ASW TARGETS.... 10,385 10,385
MOD OF
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
21 MK-54 TORPEDO 75 74,487 75 74,487
MODS.
22 MK-48 TORPEDO 94 54,281 94 54,281
ADCAP MODS.
23 QUICKSTRIKE 6,852 6,852
MINE.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
24 TORPEDO SUPPORT 46,402 46,402
EQUIPMENT.
25 ASW RANGE 11,927 11,927
SUPPORT.
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
26 FIRST 3,614 3,614
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
27 SMALL ARMS AND 12,594 12,594
WEAPONS.
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
28 CIWS MODS...... 59,303 59,303
29 COAST GUARD 19,072 19,072
WEAPONS.
30 GUN MOUNT MODS. 54,706 54,706
31 CRUISER 1,591 18,031 19,622
MODERNIZATION
WEAPONS.
Cruiser [18,031]
retention--
5"/62
Upgrade.
32 AIRBORNE MINE 20,607 20,607
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
34 SPARES AND 60,150 60,150
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 2,153 3,117,578 55,631 2,153 3,173,209
WEAPONS
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
SHIPBUILDING &
CONVERSION,
NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
1 CARRIER 1 608,195 1 608,195
REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM.
3 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,217,601 2 3,217,601
SUBMARINE.
4 ADVANCE 874,878 778,000 1,652,878
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Advance [778,000]
procurement.
5 CVN REFUELING 1 1,613,392 1 1,613,392
OVERHAULS.
6 ADVANCE 70,010 70,010
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
8 DDG 1000....... 669,222 669,222
9 DDG-51......... 2 3,048,658 2 3,048,658
10 ADVANCE 466,283 115,000 581,283
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Advance [115,000]
procurement.
11 LITTORAL COMBAT 4 1,784,959 4 1,784,959
SHIP.
AMPHIBIOUS
SHIPS
15 JOINT HIGH 1 189,196 1 189,196
SPEED VESSEL.
AUXILIARIES,
CRAFT AND
PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
17 ADVANCE 307,300 307,300
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
18 OUTFITTING..... 309,648 309,648
20 LCAC SLEP...... 2 47,930 2 47,930
21 COMPLETION OF 372,573 372,573
PY
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 13 13,579,845 893,000 13 14,472,845
SHIPBUILDI
NG &
CONVERSION
, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY &
MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 27,024 27,024
BOMBS.
2 AIRBORNE 56,575 56,575
ROCKETS, ALL
TYPES.
3 MACHINE GUN 21,266 21,266
AMMUNITION.
4 PRACTICE BOMBS. 34,319 34,319
5 CARTRIDGES & 53,755 53,755
CART ACTUATED
DEVICES.
6 AIR EXPENDABLE 61,693 61,693
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
7 JATOS.......... 2,776 2,776
8 LRLAP 6" LONG 7,102 7,102
RANGE ATTACK
PROJECTILE.
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 48,320 48,320
AMMUNITION.
10 INTERMEDIATE 25,544 25,544
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION.
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 41,624 41,624
AMMUNITION.
12 SMALL ARMS & 65,893 65,893
LANDING PARTY
AMMO.
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 11,176 11,176
DEMOLITION.
14 AMMUNITION LESS 4,116 4,116
THAN $5
MILLION.
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
15 SMALL ARMS 83,733 83,733
AMMUNITION.
16 LINEAR CHARGES, 24,645 24,645
ALL TYPES.
17 40MM, ALL TYPES 16,201 16,201
19 81MM, ALL TYPES 13,711 -10,000 3,711
Excess to [-10,000]
need.
20 120MM, ALL 12,557 12,557
TYPES.
22 GRENADES, ALL 7,634 -500 7,134
TYPES.
Excess to [-500]
need.
23 ROCKETS, ALL 27,528 27,528
TYPES.
24 ARTILLERY, ALL 93,065 93,065
TYPES.
25 DEMOLITION 2,047 -2,047 0
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
Excess to [-2,047]
need.
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES 5,297 5,297
27 NON LETHALS.... 1,362 1,362
28 AMMO 4,566 4,566
MODERNIZATION.
29 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,010 6,010
$5 MILLION.
TOTAL 759,539 -12,547 746,992
PROCUREMEN
T OF AMMO,
NAVY & MC.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
1 LM-2500 GAS 10,658 10,658
TURBINE.
2 ALLISON 501K 8,469 8,469
GAS TURBINE.
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
3 OTHER 23,392 23,392
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT.
PERISCOPES
4 SUB PERISCOPES 53,809 53,809
& IMAGING
EQUIP.
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
5 DDG MOD........ 452,371 452,371
6 FIREFIGHTING 16,958 16,958
EQUIPMENT.
7 COMMAND AND 2,492 2,492
CONTROL
SWITCHBOARD.
8 POLLUTION 20,707 20,707
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
9 SUBMARINE 12,046 12,046
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
10 VIRGINIA CLASS 79,870 79,870
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
11 LCS CLASS 19,865 19,865
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
12 SUBMARINE 41,522 41,522
BATTERIES.
13 LPD CLASS 30,543 30,543
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
14 STRATEGIC 16,257 16,257
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
15 DSSP EQUIPMENT. 3,630 3,630
16 CG 101,000 83,972 184,972
MODERNIZATION.
Cruiser [83,972]
retention.
17 LCAC........... 16,645 16,645
18 UNDERWATER EOD 35,446 35,446
PROGRAMS.
19 ITEMS LESS THAN 65,998 65,998
$5 MILLION.
20 CHEMICAL 4,359 4,359
WARFARE
DETECTORS.
21 SUBMARINE LIFE 10,218 10,218
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
22 REACTOR POWER 286,859 286,859
UNITS.
23 REACTOR 278,503 278,503
COMPONENTS.
OCEAN
ENGINEERING
24 DIVING AND 8,998 8,998
SALVAGE
EQUIPMENT.
SMALL BOATS
25 STANDARD BOATS. 30,131 30,131
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
26 OTHER SHIPS 29,772 29,772
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
27 OPERATING 64,346 64,346
FORCES IPE.
OTHER SHIP
SUPPORT
28 NUCLEAR 154,652 154,652
ALTERATIONS.
29 LCS COMMON 31,319 31,319
MISSION
MODULES
EQUIPMENT.
30 LCS MCM MISSION 38,392 38,392
MODULES.
31 LCS SUW MISSION 32,897 32,897
MODULES.
LOGISTIC
SUPPORT
32 LSD MIDLIFE.... 49,758 49,758
SHIP SONARS
34 SPQ-9B RADAR... 19,777 19,777
35 AN/SQQ-89 SURF 89,201 89,201
ASW COMBAT
SYSTEM.
36 SSN ACOUSTICS.. 190,874 190,874
37 UNDERSEA 17,035 17,035
WARFARE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
38 SONAR SWITCHES 13,410 13,410
AND
TRANSDUCERS.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
40 SUBMARINE 21,489 21,489
ACOUSTIC
WARFARE SYSTEM.
41 SSTD........... 10,716 10,716
42 FIXED 98,896 98,896
SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM.
43 SURTASS........ 2,774 2,774
44 MARITIME PATROL 18,428 18,428
AND
RECONNAISSANCE
FORCE.
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
45 AN/SLQ-32...... 92,270 92,270
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
46 SHIPBOARD IW 107,060 1,125 108,185
EXPLOIT.
Cruiser [1,125]
Retention.
47 AUTOMATED 914 914
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS).
SUBMARINE
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT
48 SUBMARINE 34,050 34,050
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT PROG.
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
49 COOPERATIVE 27,881 27,881
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY.
50 TRUSTED 448 448
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (TIS).
51 NAVAL TACTICAL 35,732 35,732
COMMAND
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(NTCSS).
53 NAVY COMMAND 9,533 9,533
AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NCCS).
54 MINESWEEPING 60,111 60,111
SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT.
55 SHALLOW WATER 6,950 6,950
MCM.
56 NAVSTAR GPS 9,089 9,089
RECEIVERS
(SPACE).
57 AMERICAN FORCES 7,768 7,768
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE.
58 STRATEGIC 3,614 3,614
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
59 OTHER TRAINING 42,911 42,911
EQUIPMENT.
AVIATION
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
60 MATCALS........ 5,861 5,861
61 SHIPBOARD AIR 8,362 8,362
TRAFFIC
CONTROL.
62 AUTOMATIC 15,685 15,685
CARRIER
LANDING SYSTEM.
63 NATIONAL AIR 16,919 16,919
SPACE SYSTEM.
64 FLEET AIR 6,828 6,828
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
65 LANDING SYSTEMS 7,646 7,646
66 ID SYSTEMS..... 35,474 35,474
67 NAVAL MISSION 9,958 9,958
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
68 DEPLOYABLE 9,064 9,064
JOINT COMMAND
AND CONT.
69 MARITIME 16,026 16,026
INTEGRATED
BROADCAST
SYSTEM.
70 TACTICAL/MOBILE 11,886 11,886
C4I SYSTEMS.
71 DCGS-N......... 11,887 11,887
72 CANES.......... 341,398 3,450 344,848
Cruiser [3,450]
Retention.
73 RADIAC......... 8,083 8,083
74 CANES-INTELL... 79,427 79,427
75 GPETE.......... 6,083 6,083
76 INTEG COMBAT 4,495 4,495
SYSTEM TEST
FACILITY.
77 EMI CONTROL 4,767 4,767
INSTRUMENTATIO
N.
78 ITEMS LESS THAN 81,755 81,755
$5 MILLION.
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
80 SHIP 56,870 1,153 58,023
COMMUNICATIONS
AUTOMATION.
Cruiser [1,153]
Retention.
81 MARITIME DOMAIN 1,063 1,063
AWARENESS
(MDA).
82 COMMUNICATIONS 28,522 28,522
ITEMS UNDER
$5M.
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
83 SUBMARINE 4,183 4,183
BROADCAST
SUPPORT.
84 SUBMARINE 69,025 69,025
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
85 SATELLITE 49,294 49,294
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS.
86 NAVY MULTIBAND 184,825 1,715 186,540
TERMINAL (NMT).
Cruiser [1,715]
Retention.
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
87 JCS 2,180 2,180
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT.
88 ELECTRICAL 1,354 1,354
POWER SYSTEMS.
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
90 INFO SYSTEMS 144,104 144,104
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
91 CRYPTOLOGIC 12,604 12,604
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.
OTHER
ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
92 COAST GUARD 6,680 6,680
EQUIPMENT.
SONOBUOYS
95 SONOBUOYS--ALL 104,677 104,677
TYPES.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
96 WEAPONS RANGE 70,753 70,753
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
97 EXPEDITIONARY 8,678 8,678
AIRFIELDS.
98 AIRCRAFT 11,349 11,349
REARMING
EQUIPMENT.
99 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH 82,618 82,618
& RECOVERY
EQUIPMENT.
100 METEOROLOGICAL 18,339 18,339
EQUIPMENT.
101 DCRS/DPL....... 1,414 1,414
102 AVIATION LIFE 40,475 40,475
SUPPORT.
103 AIRBORNE MINE 61,552 61,552
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
104 LAMPS MK III 18,771 18,771
SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT.
105 PORTABLE 7,954 7,954
ELECTRONIC
MAINTENANCE
AIDS.
106 OTHER AVIATION 10,023 10,023
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
107 AUTONOMIC 3,826 3,826
LOGISTICS
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALIS).
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
108 NAVAL FIRES 3,472 3,472
CONTROL SYSTEM.
109 GUN FIRE 4,528 4,528
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT
110 NATO SEASPARROW 8,960 8,960
111 RAM GMLS....... 1,185 1,185
112 SHIP SELF 55,371 55,371
DEFENSE SYSTEM.
113 AEGIS SUPPORT 81,614 81,614
EQUIPMENT.
114 TOMAHAWK 77,767 77,767
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
115 VERTICAL LAUNCH 754 754
SYSTEMS.
116 MARITIME 4,965 4,965
INTEGRATED
PLANNING
SYSTEM-MIPS.
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
117 STRATEGIC 181,049 181,049
MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIP.
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
118 SSN COMBAT 71,316 71,316
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
119 SUBMARINE ASW 4,018 4,018
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
120 SURFACE ASW 6,465 6,465
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
121 ASW RANGE 47,930 47,930
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
122 EXPLOSIVE 3,579 3,579
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQUIP.
123 ITEMS LESS THAN 3,125 3,125
$5 MILLION.
OTHER
EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
124 ANTI-SHIP 31,743 11,238 42,981
MISSILE DECOY
SYSTEM.
Cruiser [1,238]
Retention.
Program [10,000]
increase
for NULKA
decoys.
125 SURFACE 34,174 34,174
TRAINING
DEVICE MODS.
126 SUBMARINE 23,450 23,450
TRAINING
DEVICE MODS.
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
127 PASSENGER 7,158 7,158
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
128 GENERAL PURPOSE 3,325 3,325
TRUCKS.
129 CONSTRUCTION & 8,692 8,692
MAINTENANCE
EQUIP.
130 FIRE FIGHTING 14,533 14,533
EQUIPMENT.
131 TACTICAL 15,330 15,330
VEHICLES.
132 AMPHIBIOUS 10,803 10,803
EQUIPMENT.
133 POLLUTION 7,265 7,265
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
134 ITEMS UNDER $5 15,252 15,252
MILLION.
135 PHYSICAL 1,161 1,161
SECURITY
VEHICLES.
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
136 MATERIALS 15,204 15,204
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT.
137 OTHER SUPPLY 6,330 6,330
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
138 FIRST 6,539 6,539
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
139 SPECIAL PURPOSE 34,804 34,804
SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
TRAINING
DEVICES
140 TRAINING 25,444 25,444
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
141 COMMAND SUPPORT 43,165 43,165
EQUIPMENT.
142 EDUCATION 2,251 2,251
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
143 MEDICAL SUPPORT 3,148 3,148
EQUIPMENT.
146 NAVAL MIP 3,502 3,502
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
148 OPERATING 15,696 15,696
FORCES SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
149 C4ISR EQUIPMENT 4,344 4,344
150 ENVIRONMENTAL 19,492 19,492
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
151 PHYSICAL 177,149 177,149
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
152 ENTERPRISE 183,995 183,995
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
152A CLASSIFIED 13,063 13,063
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
153 SPARES AND 250,718 250,718
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 6,169,378 102,653 6,272,031
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT,
MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 AAV7A1 PIP..... 16,089 16,089
2 LAV PIP........ 186,216 -140,900 45,316
Budget [-140,900]
adjustment
per USMC.
ARTILLERY AND
OTHER WEAPONS
3 EXPEDITIONARY 2,502 2,502
FIRE SUPPORT
SYSTEM.
4 155MM 17,913 17,913
LIGHTWEIGHT
TOWED HOWITZER.
5 HIGH MOBILITY 47,999 47,999
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM.
6 WEAPONS AND 17,706 17,706
COMBAT
VEHICLES UNDER
$5 MILLION.
OTHER SUPPORT
7 MODIFICATION 48,040 48,040
KITS.
8 WEAPONS 4,537 4,537
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM.
GUIDED MISSILES
9 GROUND BASED 11,054 11,054
AIR DEFENSE.
11 FOLLOW ON TO 19,650 19,650
SMAW.
12 ANTI-ARMOR 20,708 20,708
WEAPONS SYSTEM-
HEAVY (AAWS-H).
COMMAND AND
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
14 UNIT OPERATIONS 1,420 1,420
CENTER.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
15 REPAIR AND TEST 25,127 25,127
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
(TEL)
16 COMBAT SUPPORT 25,822 25,822
SYSTEM.
17 MODIFICATION 2,831 2,831
KITS.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NON-TEL)
18 ITEMS UNDER $5 5,498 5,498
MILLION (COMM
& ELEC).
19 AIR OPERATIONS 11,290 11,290
C2 SYSTEMS.
RADAR +
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
20 RADAR SYSTEMS.. 128,079 128,079
21 RQ-21 UAS...... 5 27,619 5 27,619
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
22 FIRE SUPPORT 7,319 7,319
SYSTEM.
23 INTELLIGENCE 7,466 7,466
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
25 RQ-11 UAV...... 2,318 2,318
26 DCGS-MC........ 18,291 18,291
OTHER COMM/ELEC
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
29 NIGHT VISION 48,084 48,084
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
(NON-TEL)
30 COMMON COMPUTER 206,708 206,708
RESOURCES.
31 COMMAND POST 35,190 35,190
SYSTEMS.
32 RADIO SYSTEMS.. 89,059 89,059
33 COMM SWITCHING 22,500 22,500
& CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
34 COMM & ELEC 42,625 42,625
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
035A CLASSIFIED 2,290 2,290
PROGRAMS.
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
35 COMMERCIAL 2,877 2,877
PASSENGER
VEHICLES.
36 COMMERCIAL 13,960 13,960
CARGO VEHICLES.
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
37 5/4T TRUCK 8,052 8,052
HMMWV (MYP).
38 MOTOR TRANSPORT 50,269 50,269
MODIFICATIONS.
40 LOGISTICS 8 37,262 8 37,262
VEHICLE SYSTEM
REP.
41 FAMILY OF 48,160 48,160
TACTICAL
TRAILERS.
OTHER SUPPORT
43 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,705 6,705
$5 MILLION.
ENGINEER AND
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
44 ENVIRONMENTAL 13,576 13,576
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT.
45 BULK LIQUID 16,869 16,869
EQUIPMENT.
46 TACTICAL FUEL 19,108 19,108
SYSTEMS.
47 POWER EQUIPMENT 56,253 56,253
ASSORTED.
48 AMPHIBIOUS 13,089 13,089
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
49 EOD SYSTEMS.... 73,699 73,699
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
50 PHYSICAL 3,510 3,510
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
51 GARRISON MOBILE 11,490 11,490
ENGINEER
EQUIPMENT
(GMEE).
52 MATERIAL 20,659 20,659
HANDLING EQUIP.
53 FIRST 132 132
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GENERAL
PROPERTY
54 FIELD MEDICAL 31,068 31,068
EQUIPMENT.
55 TRAINING 45,895 45,895
DEVICES.
56 CONTAINER 5,801 5,801
FAMILY.
57 FAMILY OF 23,939 23,939
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.
60 RAPID 8,365 8,365
DEPLOYABLE
KITCHEN.
OTHER SUPPORT
61 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,077 7,077
$5 MILLION.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
62 SPARES AND 3,190 3,190
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 13 1,622,955 -140,900 13 1,482,055
PROCUREMEN
T, MARINE
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35........... 19 3,124,302 19 3,124,302
2 ADVANCE 293,400 -64,000 229,400
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Excess [-64,000]
advance
procurement.
OTHER AIRLIFT
5 C-130J......... 68,373 68,373
7 HC-130J........ 1 152,212 1 152,212
9 MC-130J........ 4 374,866 4 374,866
12 C-27J.......... 115,000 115,000
C-27J buy- [115,000]
back.
HELICOPTERS
15 HH-60 LOSS 60,596 60,596
REPLACEMENT/
RECAP.
17 CV-22 (MYP).... 4 294,220 4 294,220
18 ADVANCE 15,000 15,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
19 CIVIL AIR 5 2,498 5 2,498
PATROL A/C.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
24 TARGET DRONES.. 15 129,866 15 129,866
26 RQ-4........... 75,000 105,200 180,200
Sustain [105,200]
current
force
structure.
28 AC-130J........ 2 163,970 2 163,970
30 MQ-9........... 24 553,530 12 158,900 36 712,430
Additional [12] [158,900]
aircraft.
31 RQ-4 BLOCK 40 11,654 11,654
PROC.
STRATEGIC
AIRCRAFT
32 B-2A........... 82,296 82,296
33 B-1B........... 149,756 149,756
34 B-52........... 9,781 9,781
35 LARGE AIRCRAFT 28,800 28,800
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
TACTICAL
AIRCRAFT
36 A-10........... 89,919 89,919
37 F-15........... 148,378 148,378
38 F-16........... 6,896 6,896
39 F-22A.......... 283,871 283,871
40 F-35 147,995 147,995
MODIFICATIONS.
AIRLIFT
AIRCRAFT
41 C-5............ 6,967 6,967
43 C-5M........... 944,819 944,819
44 ADVANCE 175,800 175,800
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
46 C-17A.......... 205,079 205,079
47 C-21........... 199 199
48 C-32A.......... 1,750 1,750
49 C-37A.......... 445 445
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
51 GLIDER MODS.... 126 126
52 T-6............ 15,494 15,494
53 T-1............ 272 272
54 T-38........... 20,455 20,455
OTHER AIRCRAFT
56 U-2 MODS....... 44,477 44,477
57 KC-10A (ATCA).. 46,921 46,921
58 C-12........... 1,876 1,876
59 MC-12W......... 17,054 17,054
60 C-20 MODS...... 243 243
61 VC-25A MOD..... 11,185 11,185
62 C-40........... 243 243
63 C-130.......... 67,853 67,853
65 C-130J MODS.... 70,555 70,555
66 C-135.......... 46,707 46,707
67 COMPASS CALL 50,024 50,024
MODS.
68 RC-135......... 165,237 165,237
69 E-3............ 193,099 193,099
70 E-4............ 47,616 47,616
71 E-8............ 59,320 59,320
72 H-1............ 5,449 5,449
73 H-60........... 26,227 26,227
74 RQ-4 MODS...... 9,257 9,257
75 HC/MC-130 22,326 22,326
MODIFICATIONS.
76 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 18,832 18,832
77 MQ-1 MODS...... 30,861 30,861
78 MQ-9 MODS...... 238,360 238,360
79 MQ-9 UAS 93,461 93,461
PAYLOADS.
80 CV-22 MODS..... 23,881 23,881
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
81 INITIAL SPARES/ 729,691 -1,400 728,291
REPAIR PARTS.
Premature [-23,000]
request for
deployment
spares
packages
for F-35.
Support [21,600]
additional
MQ-9
aircraft.
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
82 AIRCRAFT 56,542 56,542
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
83 A-10........... 5,100 5,100
84 B-1............ 965 965
86 B-2A........... 47,580 47,580
88 KC-10A (ATCA).. 13,100 13,100
89 C-17A.......... 181,703 181,703
90 C-130.......... 31,830 31,830
91 C-135.......... 13,434 13,434
92 F-15........... 2,363 2,363
93 F-16........... 8,506 8,506
96 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 9,522 9,522
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
97 INDUSTRIAL 20,731 20,731
RESPONSIVENESS.
WAR CONSUMABLES
98 WAR CONSUMABLES 89,727 89,727
OTHER
PRODUCTION
CHARGES
99 OTHER 842,392 842,392
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
103A CLASSIFIED 20,164 20,164
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 74 11,002,999 12 313,700 86 11,316,699
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
AIR FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS........ 8,927 8,927
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES..... 118,075 118,075
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS. 32,393 32,393
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 163,467 163,467
BOMBS.
5 JOINT DIRECT 3,259 101,921 3,259 101,921
ATTACK
MUNITION.
FLARE, IR MJU-
7B
6 CAD/PAD........ 43,829 43,829
7 EXPLOSIVE 7,515 7,515
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL (EOD).
8 SPARES AND 1,003 1,003
REPAIR PARTS.
9 MODIFICATIONS.. 5,321 5,321
10 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,066 5,066
$5 MILLION.
FUZES
11 FLARES......... 46,010 46,010
12 FUZES.......... 36,444 36,444
SMALL ARMS
13 SMALL ARMS..... 29,223 29,223
TOTAL 3,259 599,194 3,259 599,194
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, AIR
FORCE.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
MISSILE
REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BAL
LISTIC
1 MISSILE 56,906 56,906
REPLACEMENT EQ-
BALLISTIC.
TACTICAL
2 JASSM.......... 157 240,399 157 240,399
3 SIDEWINDER (AIM- 164 88,020 164 88,020
9X).
4 AMRAAM......... 113 229,637 15,000 113 244,637
Program [15,000]
increase.
5 PREDATOR 413 47,675 413 47,675
HELLFIRE
MISSILE.
6 SMALL DIAMETER 144 42,000 144 42,000
BOMB.
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
7 INDUSTR'L 744 744
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION.
CLASS IV
9 MM III 54,794 54,794
MODIFICATIONS.
10 AGM-65D 271 271
MAVERICK.
11 AGM-88A HARM... 23,240 23,240
12 AIR LAUNCH 13,620 13,620
CRUISE MISSILE
(ALCM).
13 SMALL DIAMETER 5,000 5,000
BOMB.
MISSILE SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
14 INITIAL SPARES/ 74,373 74,373
REPAIR PARTS.
SPACE PROGRAMS
15 ADVANCED EHF... 557,205 557,205
17 WIDEBAND 36,835 36,835
GAPFILLER
SATELLITES(SPA
CE).
19 GPS III SPACE 2 410,294 2 410,294
SEGMENT.
20 ADVANCE 82,616 82,616
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
21 SPACEBORNE 10,554 10,554
EQUIP (COMSEC).
22 GLOBAL 58,147 58,147
POSITIONING
(SPACE).
23 DEF 89,022 89,022
METEOROLOGICAL
SAT
PROG(SPACE).
24 EVOLVED 4 1,679,856 4 1,679,856
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
VEH(SPACE).
25 SBIR HIGH 2 454,251 2 454,251
(SPACE).
SPECIAL
PROGRAMS
30 SPECIAL UPDATE 138,904 138,904
PROGRAMS.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
030A CLASSIFIED 1,097,483 1,097,483
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 999 5,491,846 15,000 999 5,506,846
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER
CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER 1,905 1,905
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
CARGO AND
UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 18,547 18,547
VEHICLE.
3 CAP VEHICLES... 932 932
4 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,699 1,699
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 SECURITY AND 10,850 10,850
TACTICAL
VEHICLES.
6 ITEMS LESS THAN 9,246 9,246
$5 MILLION.
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
7 FIRE FIGHTING/ 23,148 23,148
CRASH RESCUE
VEHICLES.
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
8 ITEMS LESS THAN 18,323 18,323
$5 MILLION.
BASE
MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW 1,685 1,685
REMOV AND
CLEANING EQU.
10 ITEMS LESS THAN 17,014 17,014
$5 MILLION.
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMS
EC)
12 COMSEC 166,559 166,559
EQUIPMENT.
13 MODIFICATIONS 1,133 1,133
(COMSEC).
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
14 INTELLIGENCE 2,749 2,749
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
15 INTELLIGENCE 32,876 32,876
COMM EQUIPMENT.
16 ADVANCE TECH 877 877
SENSORS.
17 MISSION 15,295 15,295
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
18 AIR TRAFFIC 21,984 21,984
CONTROL &
LANDING SYS.
19 NATIONAL 30,698 30,698
AIRSPACE
SYSTEM.
20 BATTLE CONTROL 17,368 17,368
SYSTEM--FIXED.
21 THEATER AIR 23,483 23,483
CONTROL SYS
IMPROVEMENTS.
22 WEATHER 17,864 17,864
OBSERVATION
FORECAST.
23 STRATEGIC 53,995 53,995
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
24 CHEYENNE 14,578 14,578
MOUNTAIN
COMPLEX.
25 TAC SIGINT SPT. 208 208
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
27 GENERAL 69,743 69,743
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
28 AF GLOBAL 15,829 15,829
COMMAND &
CONTROL SYS.
29 MOBILITY 11,023 11,023
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
30 AIR FORCE 64,521 64,521
PHYSICAL
SECURITY
SYSTEM.
31 COMBAT TRAINING 18,217 18,217
RANGES.
32 C3 11,899 11,899
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
33 GCSS-AF FOS.... 13,920 13,920
34 THEATER BATTLE 9,365 9,365
MGT C2 SYSTEM.
35 AIR & SPACE 33,907 33,907
OPERATIONS CTR-
WPN SYS.
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
36 INFORMATION 52,464 52,464
TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS.
38 AFNET.......... 125,788 125,788
39 VOICE SYSTEMS.. 16,811 16,811
40 USCENTCOM...... 32,138 32,138
DISA PROGRAMS
41 SPACE BASED IR 47,135 47,135
SENSOR PGM
SPACE.
42 NAVSTAR GPS 2,031 2,031
SPACE.
43 NUDET DETECTION 5,564 5,564
SYS SPACE.
44 AF SATELLITE 44,219 44,219
CONTROL
NETWORK SPACE.
45 SPACELIFT RANGE 109,545 109,545
SYSTEM SPACE.
46 MILSATCOM SPACE 47,592 47,592
47 SPACE MODS 47,121 47,121
SPACE.
48 COUNTERSPACE 20,961 20,961
SYSTEM.
ORGANIZATION
AND BASE
49 TACTICAL C-E 126,131 126,131
EQUIPMENT.
50 COMBAT SURVIVOR 23,707 23,707
EVADER LOCATER.
51 RADIO EQUIPMENT 12,757 12,757
52 CCTV/ 10,716 10,716
AUDIOVISUAL
EQUIPMENT.
53 BASE COMM 74,528 74,528
INFRASTRUCTURE.
MODIFICATIONS
54 COMM ELECT MODS 43,507 43,507
PERSONAL SAFETY
& RESCUE EQUIP
55 NIGHT VISION 22,693 22,693
GOGGLES.
56 ITEMS LESS THAN 30,887 30,887
$5 MILLION.
DEPOT
PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
57 MECHANIZED 2,850 2,850
MATERIAL
HANDLING EQUIP.
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
58 BASE PROCURED 8,387 8,387
EQUIPMENT.
59 CONTINGENCY 10,358 10,358
OPERATIONS.
60 PRODUCTIVITY 3,473 3,473
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT.
62 MOBILITY 14,471 14,471
EQUIPMENT.
63 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,894 1,894
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
65 DARP RC135..... 24,176 24,176
66 DCGS-AF........ 142,928 142,928
68 SPECIAL UPDATE 479,446 479,446
PROGRAM.
69 DEFENSE SPACE 39,155 39,155
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
069A CLASSIFIED 14,331,312 14,331,312
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
71 SPARES AND 14,663 14,663
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 16,720,848 16,720,848
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, OSD
42 MAJOR 45,938 45,938
EQUIPMENT, OSD.
43 MAJOR 17,582 17,582
EQUIPMENT,
INTELLIGENCE.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, NSA
41 INFORMATION 6,770 6,770
SYSTEMS
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, WHS
45 MAJOR 26,550 26,550
EQUIPMENT, WHS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DISA
12 INFORMATION 12,708 12,708
SYSTEMS
SECURITY.
14 GLOBAL COMBAT 3,002 3,002
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
15 TELEPORT 46,992 46,992
PROGRAM.
16 ITEMS LESS THAN 108,462 108,462
$5 MILLION.
17 NET CENTRIC 2,865 2,865
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES
(NCES).
18 DEFENSE 116,906 116,906
INFORMATION
SYSTEM NETWORK.
19 PUBLIC KEY 1,827 1,827
INFRASTRUCTURE.
21 CYBER SECURITY 10,319 10,319
INITIATIVE.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DLA
22 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 9,575 9,575
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DSS
26 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 2,522 2,522
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
02 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,486 1,486
$5 MILLION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, TJS
44 MAJOR 21,878 21,878
EQUIPMENT, TJS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE
DEFENSE AGENCY
30 THAAD.......... 36 460,728 12 127,000 48 587,728
Procure 12 [12] [127,000]
additional
interceptor
s.
31 AEGIS BMD...... 29 389,626 29 389,626
32 BMDS AN/TPY-2 1 217,244 1 170,000 2 387,244
RADARS.
Procure [1] [170,000]
additional
AN/TPY-2
radar.
33 RADAR SPARES... 10,177 10,177
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
05 PERSONNEL 6,147 6,147
ADMINISTRATION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION
AGENCY
27 VEHICLES....... 1 50 1 50
28 OTHER MAJOR 3 13,096 3 13,096
EQUIPMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
24 AUTOMATION/ 1,458 1,458
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
03 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 2,129 2,129
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
23 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 6 15,179 6 15,179
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
045A CLASSIFIED 555,787 555,787
PROGRAMS.
AVIATION
PROGRAMS
46 ROTARY WING 74,832 74,832
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.
48 MH-60 126,780 126,780
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
49 NON-STANDARD 7 99,776 -62,800 7 36,976
AVIATION.
Transfer to [-62,800]
Line 051--
Mission
Shift.
51 U-28........... 7,530 109,400 116,930
Program [46,600]
increase.
Transfer [62,800]
from Line
049--Missio
n Shift.
52 MH-47 CHINOOK.. 7 134,785 7 134,785
53 RQ-11 UNMANNED 2,062 2,062
AERIAL VEHICLE.
54 CV-22 4 139,147 4 139,147
MODIFICATION.
55 MQ-1 UNMANNED 3,963 23,000 26,963
AERIAL VEHICLE.
Program [23,000]
increase.
56 MQ-9 UNMANNED 3,952 35,400 39,352
AERIAL VEHICLE.
Program [35,400]
increase.
58 STUASL0........ 12,945 12,945
59 PRECISION 73,013 73,013
STRIKE PACKAGE.
60 AC/MC-130J..... 51,484 51,484
62 C-130 25,248 25,248
MODIFICATIONS.
63 AIRCRAFT 5,314 5,314
SUPPORT.
SHIPBUILDING
64 UNDERWATER 23,037 23,037
SYSTEMS.
AMMUNITION
PROGRAMS
66 ORDNANCE 113,183 113,183
REPLENISHMENT.
67 ORDNANCE 36,981 36,981
ACQUISITION.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
68 COMMUNICATIONS 99,838 3,900 103,738
EQUIPMENT AND
ELECTRONICS.
Program [3,900]
increase.
69 INTELLIGENCE 71,428 71,428
SYSTEMS.
70 SMALL ARMS AND 27,108 27,108
WEAPONS.
71 DISTRIBUTED 12,767 12,767
COMMON GROUND/
SURFACE
SYSTEMS.
74 COMBATANT CRAFT 42,348 42,348
SYSTEMS.
75 SPARES AND 600 600
REPAIR PARTS.
77 TACTICAL 37,421 37,421
VEHICLES.
78 MISSION 36,949 5,000 41,949
TRAINING AND
PREPARATION
SYSTEMS.
Program [5,000]
increase.
79 COMBAT MISSION 20,255 20,255
REQUIREMENTS.
80 MILCON 17,590 17,590
COLLATERAL
EQUIPMENT.
82 AUTOMATION 66,573 66,573
SYSTEMS.
83 GLOBAL VIDEO 6,549 6,549
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES.
84 OPERATIONAL 32,335 32,335
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
85 SOLDIER 15,153 15,153
PROTECTION AND
SURVIVAL
SYSTEMS.
86 VISUAL 33,920 33,920
AUGMENTATION
LASERS AND
SENSOR SYSTEMS.
87 TACTICAL RADIO 75,132 75,132
SYSTEMS.
90 MISCELLANEOUS 6,667 6,667
EQUIPMENT.
91 OPERATIONAL 217,972 25,300 243,272
ENHANCEMENTS.
Program [25,300]
increase.
92 MILITARY 27,417 27,417
INFORMATION
SUPPORT
OPERATIONS.
CBDP
93 INSTALLATION 24,025 24,025
FORCE
PROTECTION.
94 INDIVIDUAL 73,720 73,720
PROTECTION.
95 DECONTAMINATION 506 506
96 JOINT BIO 32,597 32,597
DEFENSE
PROGRAM
(MEDICAL).
97 COLLECTIVE 3,144 3,144
PROTECTION.
98 CONTAMINATION 164,886 164,886
AVOIDANCE.
TOTAL 94 4,187,935 13 436,200 107 4,624,135
PROCUREMEN
T, DEFENSE-
WIDE.
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
01 JOINT URGENT 99,477 -99,477 0
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND.
Program [-99,477]
reduction.
TOTAL 99,477 -99,477 0
JOINT
URGENT
OPERATIONA
L NEEDS
FUND.
TOTAL 125,474 97,432,379 50 1,689,540 125,524 99,121,919
PROCUREMEN
T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTARY
9 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD. 2 71,000 2 71,000
12 KIOWA WARRIOR (OH-58F) WRA........ 16 183,900 16 183,900
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER.................. 6 231,300 6 231,300
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 24 486,200 24 486,200
ARMY.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM
4 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 161 29,100 161 29,100
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS
8 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 186 20,553 186 20,553
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 347 49,653 347 49,653
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT
VEH
36 M16 RIFLE MODS.................... 15,422 15,422
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, 15,422 15,422
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES........... 1,500 1,500
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 10,000 10,000
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 80,000 -19,000 61,000
Pricing adjustments for target [-19,000]
practice round and light-
weight dual purpose round.
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 14,000 14,000
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 6,000 6,000
11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 56,000 56,000
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM AND 29,956 29,956
105MM, ALL TYP.
14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 37,044 37,044
TYPES.
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982... 12,300 12,300
16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 17,000 17,000
PRIMERS, ALL.
MINES
17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL 12,000 12,000
TYPES.
ROCKETS
20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 63,635 63,635
OTHER AMMUNITION
23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 16,858 16,858
MISCELLANEOUS
28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 1,200 1,200
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 357,493 -19,000 338,493
AMMUNITION, ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
2 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 223 28,247 223 28,247
(FMTV).
4 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES 2,050 2,050
(FHTV).
11 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM.... 2,128 271,000 2,128 271,000
14 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED 927,400 927,400
(MRAP) MODS.
COMM--INTELLIGENCE COMM
52 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT..... 8,000 8,000
COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS
61 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 25,000 25,000
MOD PROGRAM.
ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
69 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 960 90,355 960 90,355
73 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND 6,516 6,516
COLLECTION.
ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
75 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR.. 27,646 27,646
77 FMLY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 52,000 52,000
CAPABILITIES.
78 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 205,209 205,209
COUNTERMEASURES.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
92 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER 14,600 14,600
RADARS).
99 COUNTERFIRE RADARS................ 4 54,585 4 54,585
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS
102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY............ 22,430 22,430
103 BATTLE COMMAND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT 2,400 2,400
SYSTEM.
112 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS)..... 6,400 6,400
113 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE 5,160 5,160
(SALE).
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT 15,000 15,000
(FNLE).
127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS)........ 7,193 66,100 7,193 66,100
ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
135 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT 3,565 3,565
(EOD EQPMT).
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
143 FORCE PROVIDER.................... 1 39,700 1 39,700
145 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL 15 650 15 650
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
149 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & 13 2,119 13 2,119
WATER.
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 4 428 4 428
SYSTEMS.
153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MAINT 30 30
EQ).
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
175 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT... 7,000 7,000
176 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM....... 1,275 27,250 1,275 27,250
178 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 1,000 1,000
TRAINER.
179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF 5,900 5,900
ARMY TRAINING.
OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
183 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT 98,167 -38,000 60,167
EQUIPMENT.
Rapid equipping force delayed [-38,000]
execution rates.
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 11,816 2,015,907 -38,000 11,816 1,977,907
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
1 ATTACK THE NETWORK................ 950,500 950,500
JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT
2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE................. 400,000 400,000
FORCE TRAINING
3 TRAIN THE FORCE................... 149,500 149,500
STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE
4 OPERATIONS........................ 175,400 227,400 402,800
Transfer from title 1......... [227,400]
TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE 1,675,400 227,400 1,902,800
DEV DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/AH-1Z)........ 1 29,800 1 29,800
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
30 AV-8 SERIES....................... 42,238 42,238
32 F-18 SERIES....................... 41,243 41,243
35 H-53 SERIES....................... 15,870 15,870
38 EP-3 SERIES....................... 13,030 13,030
43 C-130 SERIES...................... 16,737 16,737
48 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 2,714 2,714
54 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES........... 570 570
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP &
FACILITIES
62 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT........... 2,380 2,380
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 1 164,582 1 164,582
NAVY.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TACTICAL MISSILES
9 HELLFIRE.......................... 212 17,000 212 17,000
10 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED 50 6,500 50 6,500
MUNITIONS (SOPGM).
TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, 262 23,500 262 23,500
NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 18,000 18,000
2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 80,200 80,200
3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION............ 21,500 21,500
6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 20,303 20,303
11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION......... 532 532
12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO... 2,643 2,643
13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 2,322 2,322
14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 6,308 6,308
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION............. 10,948 10,948
16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES......... 9,940 9,940
17 40 MM, ALL TYPES.................. 5,963 5,963
20 120MM, ALL TYPES.................. 11,605 11,605
21 CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES............... 2,831 2,831
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 2,359 2,359
23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES................ 3,051 3,051
24 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 54,886 54,886
25 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 1,391 1,391
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES................... 30,945 30,945
27 NON LETHALS....................... 8 8
29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 12 12
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, 285,747 285,747
NAVY & MC.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
70 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS....... 3,603 3,603
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
97 EXPEDITIONARY AIRFIELDS........... 58,200 58,200
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
127 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 3,901 3,901
128 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS............ 852 852
129 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP.. 2,436 2,436
130 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT........... 3,798 3,798
131 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 13,394 13,394
134 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION............ 375 375
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
149 C4ISR EQUIPMENT................... 3,000 3,000
151 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 9,323 9,323
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 98,882 98,882
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES
2 LAV PIP........................... 10,000 10,000
ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS
5 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET 108,860 108,860
SYSTEM.
GUIDED MISSILES
10 JAVELIN........................... 29,158 29,158
OTHER SUPPORT
13 MODIFICATION KITS................. 41,602 41,602
REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT
15 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT......... 13,632 13,632
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
17 MODIFICATION KITS................. 2,831 2,831
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-
TEL)
19 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS......... 51 15,575 51 15,575
RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
20 RADAR SYSTEMS..................... 8,015 8,015
INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
23 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 35,310 35,310
OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
29 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT............ 332 652 332 652
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL)
30 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES......... 25 19,807 25 19,807
32 RADIO SYSTEMS..................... 74 36,482 74 36,482
33 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS.. 4 41,295 4 41,295
TACTICAL VEHICLES
39 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE 32 10,466 32 10,466
REPLACEMENT.
41 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS....... 7,642 7,642
ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
45 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT............. 18,239 18,239
46 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS............. 51,359 51,359
47 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED.......... 20,247 20,247
49 EOD SYSTEMS....................... 207 362,658 207 362,658
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
50 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 55,500 55,500
52 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP........... 19,100 19,100
GENERAL PROPERTY
54 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT........... 15,751 15,751
55 TRAINING DEVICES.................. 3,602 3,602
57 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.. 15,900 15,900
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE 725 943,683 725 943,683
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
35 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED 139,800 139,800
COUNTERMEASURES.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
55 U-2 MODS.......................... 46,800 46,800
63 C-130............................. 11,400 11,400
67 COMPASS CALL MODS................. 14,000 14,000
68 RC-135............................ 8,000 8,000
75 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS........... 4,700 4,700
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
81 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS....... 21,900 21,900
OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES
99 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES.......... 59,000 59,000
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 305,600 305,600
AIR FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES........................ 13,592 13,592
BOMBS
4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 23,211 23,211
5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 1,419 53,923 1,419 53,923
FLARE, IR MJU-7B
6 CAD/PAD........................... 2,638 2,638
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,600 2,600
FUZES
11 FLARES............................ 11,726 11,726
12 FUZES............................. 8,513 8,513
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 1,419 116,203 1,419 116,203
AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL
5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 304 34,350 304 34,350
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 304 34,350 304 34,350
AIR FORCE.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE........... 2,010 2,010
4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,675 2,675
SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES
6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,557 2,557
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 4,329 4,329
BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU 984 984
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,120 9,120
ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS
22 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST...... 5,600 5,600
SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS
27 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.... 11,157 11,157
ORGANIZATION AND BASE
49 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT............ 7,000 7,000
53 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE.......... 10,654 10,654
MODIFICATIONS
54 COMM ELECT MODS................... 8,000 8,000
PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP
55 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES.............. 902 902
BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
59 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS............ 60,090 60,090
62 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT................ 9,400 9,400
63 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,175 9,175
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
069A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 2,672,317 2,672,317
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
71 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 2,300 2,300
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 2,818,270 2,818,270
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
15 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 5,260 5,260
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
045A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 126,201 126,201
AVIATION PROGRAMS
61 MQ-8 UAV.......................... 16,500 16,500
OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
68 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND 4 151 4 151
ELECTRONICS.
69 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.............. 41 30,528 41 30,528
77 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 54 1,843 54 1,843
82 AUTOMATION SYSTEMS................ 1 1,000 1 1,000
86 VISUAL AUGMENTATION LASERS AND 12 108 12 108
SENSOR SYSTEMS.
91 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 31 14,758 31 14,758
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE- 143 196,349 143 196,349
WIDE.
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS 100,000 -50,000 50,000
FUND.
Program reduction............. [-50,000]
TOTAL JOINT URGENT 100,000 -50,000 50,000
OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND.
NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT
UNDISTRIBUTED
999 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 500,000 500,000
Program increase.............. [500,000]
TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD & 500,000 500,000
RESERVE EQUIPMENT.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 15,041 9,687,241 620,400 15,041 10,307,641
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 20,860 20,860
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH 219,180 219,180
SCIENCES.
3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 80,986 80,986
INITIATIVES.
4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 123,045 123,045
RESEARCH CENTERS.
...................... SUBTOTAL BASIC 444,071 444,071
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... APPLIED RESEARCH
5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY.... 29,041 10,250 39,291
...................... Advanced coating [10,250]
technologies for
corrosion mitigation.
6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 45,260 45,260
SURVIVABILITY.
7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP............. 22,439 22,439
8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY..... 51,607 51,607
9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 15,068 15,068
TECHNOLOGY.
10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY...... 49,383 49,383
11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 25,999 25,999
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 23,507 23,507
SIMULATION.
13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 69,062 69,062
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY... 60,823 60,823
15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,465 4,465
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
16 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 7,169 7,169
PROGRAM.
17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 35,218 35,218
TECHNOLOGY.
18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND 60,300 60,300
ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY. 53,244 53,244
20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS..... 18,850 18,850
21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS 19,872 19,872
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY.
22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,095 20,095
TECHNOLOGY.
23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 28,852 28,852
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 9,830 9,830
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 70,693 70,693
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 17,781 17,781
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY... 28,281 28,281
28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 107,891 107,891
...................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 874,730 10,250 884,980
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 39,359 39,359
TECHNOLOGY.
30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 69,580 69,580
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 64,215 64,215
TECHNOLOGY.
32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 67,613 67,613
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 104,359 104,359
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603006A COMMAND, CONTROL, 4,157 4,157
COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 9,856 9,856
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
36 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 50,661 50,661
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............ 9,126 9,126
38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 17,257 17,257
& SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............ 9,925 9,925
40 0603105A MILITARY HIV RESEARCH... 6,984 6,984
41 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 9,716 9,716
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
42 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............ 3,487 3,487
43 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............ 2,323 2,323
44 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 21,683 21,683
TECHNOLOGY.
45 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 71,111 71,111
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
46 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............ 10,902 10,902
47 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 180,582 180,582
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
48 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 27,204 27,204
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
49 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 6,095 6,095
PROGRAM.
50 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 37,217 37,217
TECHNOLOGY.
51 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13,626 13,626
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
52 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 28,458 28,458
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
53 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 25,226 25,226
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 890,722 890,722
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES
54 0603305A ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE 14,505 14,505
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 9,876 9,876
INTEGRATION.
56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 5,054 5,054
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 2,725 2,725
TARGET DEFEATING SYS--
ADV DEV.
58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 30,560 30,560
AMMUNITION.
59 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT 14,347 14,347
SYSTEM (ATAS).
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 10,073 10,073
SURVIVABILITY.
61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 8,660 8,660
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--
ADV DEV.
62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 10,715 10,715
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4,631 4,631
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
64 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION 278,018 278,018
NETWORK-TACTICAL--DEM/
VAL.
65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 4,961 4,961
DEVELOPMENT.
66 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV....... 8,602 8,602
67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 14,605 14,605
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
68 0603805A COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT 5,054 5,054
CONTROL SYSTEM
EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS.
69 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV 24,384 24,384
70 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS-- 32,050 32,050
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
71 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 96 96
SERVICE.
72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 24,868 24,868
INITIATIVES.
73 0604131A TRACTOR JUTE............ 59 59
75 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 76,039 76,039
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
77 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE 4,043 4,043
(BUDGET ACTIVITY 4).
78 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS.......... 26,196 26,196
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 610,121 610,121
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
79 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS....... 78,538 78,538
80 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS. 90,494 90,494
81 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 181,347 -5,000 176,347
DEVELOPMENT.
...................... Program adjustment.. [-5,000]
83 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 12,636 12,636
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
84 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS 5,694 5,694
SYSTEM.
85 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............ 32,095 32,095
86 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS 96,478 -3,400 93,078
...................... XM25 funding ahead [-3,400]
of need.
87 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES 3,006 3,006
89 0604611A JAVELIN................. 5,040 5,040
90 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 3,077 3,077
VEHICLES.
91 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL..... 9,769 9,769
92 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND 13,141 13,141
VEHICLE (TUGV).
99 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS-- 32,621 32,621
ENG DEV.
100 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, 2,132 2,132
CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT.
101 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 44,787 44,787
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
102 0604716A TERRAIN INFORMATION--ENG 1,008 1,008
DEV.
103 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 73,333 73,333
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
104 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 28,937 28,937
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
105 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 10,815 10,815
DEVELOPMENT.
106 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 13,926 13,926
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
107 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 17,797 17,797
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
108 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 214,270 214,270
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
109 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 14,581 14,581
ENG DEV.
110 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 43,706 43,706
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
111 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 20,776 20,776
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
112 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 43,395 43,395
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
113 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/ 104,983 104,983
BARRIER--ENG DEV.
114 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS--EMD 4,346 4,346
116 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 77,223 77,223
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
117 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT....... 3,486 3,486
118 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 9,963 9,963
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
119 0604823A FIREFINDER.............. 20,517 20,517
120 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 51,851 51,851
DEM/VAL.
121 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD.. 167,797 167,797
122 0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS COMBINED 400,861 -400,861
AGGREGATE PROGRAM (CAP).
...................... Prohibition of funds [-400,861]
for MEADS.
123 0604870A NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL 7,922 7,922
MONITORING SENSOR
NETWORK.
124 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 51,463 51,463
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 158,646 158,646
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-
A).
126 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 10,000 10,000
MISSILE (JAGM).
128 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE....... 69,029 69,029
129 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 277,374 277,374
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
130 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE... 639,874 639,874
131 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR.... 47,426 47,426
132 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 72,295 72,295
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
133 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............ 4,232 4,232
134 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 13,942 13,942
DEVELOPMENT.
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,286,629 -409,261 2,877,368
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
135 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 18,090 18,090
DEVELOPMENT.
136 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 14,034 14,034
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.... 37,394 37,394
138 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER...... 21,026 21,026
139 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL.... 176,816 176,816
140 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 27,902 27,902
PROGRAM.
142 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 369,900 369,900
FACILITIES.
143 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 69,183 69,183
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
144 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 44,753 44,753
ANALYSIS.
146 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION.. 5,762 5,762
147 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT 7,402 7,402
TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
148 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS 19,954 19,954
ANALYSIS.
149 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 5,535 5,535
ITEMS.
150 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 67,789 67,789
TESTING.
151 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER.. 62,765 62,765
152 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X- 1,545 1,545
CMD COLLABORATION &
INTEG.
153 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES.. 83,422 83,422
154 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 50,820 50,820
ACTIVITIES.
155 0605805A MUNITIONS 46,763 46,763
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND
SAFETY.
156 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4,601 4,601
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
157 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D...... 18,524 18,524
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,153,980 1,153,980
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
159 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 143,005 143,005
PROGRAM.
161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 109,978 109,978
IMPROVEMENT.
162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT 190,422 -19,000 171,422
OFFICE.
...................... Program adjustment.. [-19,000]
164 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY 32,556 32,556
TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM.
165 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 253,959 253,959
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
166 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM. 68,325 68,325
167 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 280,247 -54,100 226,147
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
...................... Ahead of need....... [-54,100]
168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE 898 898
COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
169 0203758A DIGITIZATION............ 35,180 35,180
171 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 20,733 20,733
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
172 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............ 63,243 63,243
173 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 31,738 31,738
SYSTEM.
174 0208058A JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 35 35
(JHSV).
176 0303028A SECURITY AND 7,591 7,591
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.
177 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 15,961 15,961
SECURITY PROGRAM.
178 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 120,927 120,927
SYSTEM.
179 0303142A SATCOM GROUND 15,756 15,756
ENVIRONMENT (SPACE).
180 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND 14,443 14,443
AND CONTROL SYSTEM.
182 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 31,303 31,303
VEHICLES.
183 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON 40,876 40,876
GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS.
184 0305219A MQ-1 SKY WARRIOR A UAV.. 74,618 74,618
185 0305232A RQ-11 UAV............... 4,039 4,039
186 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................ 31,158 31,158
187 0305235A VERTICAL UAS............ 2,387 2,387
188 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 15,248 15,248
INTELLIGENCE.
189 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 59,908 59,908
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
189A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS..... 4,628 4,628
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,669,162 -73,100 1,596,062
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 8,929,415 -472,111 8,457,304
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 113,690 10,000 123,690
INITIATIVES.
...................... Increase Defense [10,000]
University Research
Instrumentation
Program.
2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,261 18,261
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH 473,070 473,070
SCIENCES.
003A 0601XXXN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.. 3,450 3,450
...................... Transfer from PE [3,450]
0205658N.
...................... SUBTOTAL BASIC 605,021 13,450 618,471
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 89,189 89,189
RESEARCH.
5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 143,301 143,301
RESEARCH.
6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 46,528 46,528
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 41,696 41,696
RESEARCH.
8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 44,127 44,127
APPLIED RESEARCH.
9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 78,228 78,228
APPLIED RESEARCH.
10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 49,635 49,635
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 5,973 5,973
APPLIED RESEARCH.
12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 96,814 96,814
RESEARCH.
13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL 162,417 162,417
CAPABILITIES APPLIED
RESEARCH.
14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 32,394 32,394
WARFARE APPLIED
RESEARCH.
...................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 790,302 790,302
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION 56,543 56,543
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION 18,616 18,616
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
19 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 54,858 54,858
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
20 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 130,598 130,598
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
21 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 11,706 11,706
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
22 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL 256,382 256,382
CAPABILITIES ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 3,880 3,880
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 51,819 51,819
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 584,402 584,402
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES
28 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 34,085 34,085
APPLICATIONS.
29 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY.. 8,783 8,783
30 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,773 3,773
AND CONTROL.
31 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS........ 24,512 24,512
32 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 8,090 8,090
33 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,301 5,301
RECONNAISSANCE.
34 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,506 1,506
TECHNOLOGY.
35 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW 190,622 190,622
WATER MINE
COUNTERMEASURES.
36 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 93,346 93,346
DEFENSE.
37 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 108,871 108,871
DEVELOPMENT.
39 0603525N PILOT FISH.............. 101,169 101,169
40 0603527N RETRACT LARCH........... 74,312 74,312
41 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER......... 90,730 90,730
42 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL.... 777 777
43 0603553N SURFACE ASW............. 6,704 6,704
44 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE 555,123 374,400 929,523
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
...................... Program increase.... [374,400]
45 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 9,368 9,368
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
46 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 24,609 24,609
DESIGN.
47 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN 13,710 13,710
& FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
48 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 249,748 249,748
SYSTEMS.
49 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 29,897 29,897
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
50 0603576N CHALK EAGLE............. 509,988 509,988
51 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 429,420 429,420
(LCS).
52 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM 56,551 56,551
INTEGRATION.
53 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS.. 7,342 7,342
54 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 95,182 95,182
VEHICLES.
55 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 10,496 10,496
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
56 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 52,331 52,331
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
57 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT.. 56,512 56,512
58 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 7,029 7,029
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
59 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 21,080 21,080
60 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM..... 55,324 55,324
61 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT.. 3,401 3,401
62 0603734N CHALK CORAL............. 45,966 45,966
63 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 3,811 3,811
PRODUCTIVITY.
64 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE........... 341,305 341,305
65 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA........... 181,220 181,220
66 0603751N RETRACT ELM............. 174,014 174,014
68 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN.......... 68,654 68,654
69 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES....... 44,487 44,487
70 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,389 9,389
DEVELOPMENT.
71 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY.. 16,132 16,132
72 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 44,994 44,994
TESTING.
73 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 137,369 137,369
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--
DEM/VAL.
76 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 73,934 73,934
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
77 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 711 711
OPTIMIZATION.
78 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 71,300 71,300
CONTROLLED IED
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(JCREW).
79 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 5,654 5,654
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
80 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 31,549 31,549
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/
ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
82 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 86,801 86,801
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
83 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 44,500 44,500
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
84 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 13,172 13,172
MIP.
86 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 643 643
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,335,297 374,400 4,709,697
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
87 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT.. 33,978 33,978
88 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV. 32,789 32,789
89 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT... 84,988 84,988
90 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 6,866 6,866
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
91 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,060 4,060
ENGINEERING.
92 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION 3,451 3,451
PROGRAM.
93 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM.. 13,071 13,071
94 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM. 71,645 71,645
95 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE........ 119,065 119,065
96 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............ 31,105 31,105
97 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS. 34,299 34,299
98 0604262N V-22A................... 54,412 54,412
99 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 2,717 2,717
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604269N EA-18................... 13,009 13,009
101 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 51,304 51,304
DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604273N VH-71A EXECUTIVE HELO 61,163 61,163
DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 187,024 187,024
(NGJ).
104 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 337,480 337,480
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-
NAVY).
105 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 260,616 250,000 510,616
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
...................... Cruiser Retention... [250,000]
106 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 824 824
INTEGRATION.
107 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 31,064 31,064
(SDB).
108 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 63,891 63,891
IMPROVEMENTS.
109 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............ 73,246 73,246
110 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 10,568 10,568
FORCE (MAGTF)
ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW)
FOR AVIATION.
111 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 39,974 39,974
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
112 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER 122,481 -75,000 47,481
LAUNCHED AIRBORNE
SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE
(UCLASS) SYSTEM.
...................... Transfer from RDN [-75,000]
112 to RDN 167.
113 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 255,516 255,516
SENSORS.
114 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 82,620 82,620
MODERNIZATION.
115 0604504N AIR CONTROL............. 5,633 5,633
116 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 55,826 55,826
SYSTEMS.
117 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION 918 918
CENTER CONVERSION.
118 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN.......... 165,230 165,230
119 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 49,141 49,141
WARFARE SYSTEM.
120 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 196,737 196,737
LIVE FIRE T&E.
121 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,889 3,889
RESOURCES.
122 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT........ 8,335 8,335
123 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 49,818 49,818
DEVELOPMENT.
124 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 10,099 10,099
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
125 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 7,348 7,348
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
126 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 5,518 5,518
SYSTEMS.
127 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 87,662 87,662
(DETECT & CONTROL).
128 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 64,079 64,079
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
129 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 151,489 1,125 152,614
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
...................... Cruiser Retention... [1,125]
131 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT..... 12,707 12,707
132 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM.... 47,764 47,764
133 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 737,149 737,149
(JSF)--EMD.
134 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 743,926 743,926
(JSF)--EMD.
135 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,143 12,143
DEVELOPMENT.
136 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 72,209 72,209
DEVELOPMENT.
138 0605212N CH-53K RDTE............. 606,204 606,204
140 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 421,102 421,102
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
141 0204202N DDG-1000................ 124,655 124,655
142 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 1,170 1,170
MIP.
144 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 23,255 23,255
SYSTEMS.
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 5,747,232 176,125 5,923,357
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
146 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 30,790 30,790
DEVELOPMENT.
147 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 59,221 59,221
DEVELOPMENT.
148 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.... 35,894 35,894
149 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 7,573 7,573
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
150 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 20,963 20,963
SUPPORT--NAVY.
151 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL 46,856 46,856
ANALYSES.
153 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 796 796
SERVICES.
154 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 32,782 32,782
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
155 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 3,306 3,306
SUPPORT.
156 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 70,302 70,302
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
157 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 144,033 144,033
SUPPORT.
158 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 342,298 342,298
SUPPORT.
159 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 16,399 16,399
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
160 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND 4,579 4,579
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(SEW) SUPPORT.
161 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 8,000 8,000
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
162 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM 18,490 18,490
WIDE SUPPORT.
163 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 2,795 2,795
ACTIVITIES.
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 845,077 845,077
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
167 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR 142,282 75,000 217,282
VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED
COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT.
...................... Transfer from RDN [75,000]
112 to RDN 167.
170 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 105,892 105,892
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
171 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 34,729 34,729
PROGRAM.
172 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 1,434 1,434
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
173 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 19,208 19,208
COMMUNICATIONS.
174 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY 25,566 25,566
TRANSITION (RTT).
175 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS........ 188,299 188,299
176 0204152N E-2 SQUADRONS........... 8,610 8,610
177 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 15,695 15,695
(TACTICAL).
178 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT......... 4,171 4,171
179 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 11,265 11,265
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
180 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 45,922 45,922
SYSTEM.
181 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 8,435 8,435
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
182 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 75,088 75,088
RADAR (G/ATOR).
183 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 20,229 20,229
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
184 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 1,756 1,756
SUPPORT.
185 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 19,843 19,843
READINESS SUPPORT.
186 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT........ 11,477 11,477
187 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS..... 118,818 118,818
188 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT 27,342 27,342
SYSTEM INTEGRATION.
189 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP............. 28,717 28,717
190 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS... 89,157 89,157
191 0205658N NAVY SCIENCE ASSISTANCE 3,450 -3,450
PROGRAM.
...................... Transfer to Science [-3,450]
and Technology (RDN
003A).
192 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR 86,435 86,435
POWER SYSTEMS.
193 0206313M MARINE CORPS 219,054 219,054
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
194 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 181,693 181,693
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
195 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 58,393 58,393
SERVICES SUPPORT.
196 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 22,966 22,966
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
197 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES... 21,107 21,107
198 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE 2,857 2,857
AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE
(AMRAAM).
199 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL 1,932 1,932
(JHSV).
204 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 188,482 188,482
(SPACE).
205 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 16,749 16,749
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
206 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 26,307 26,307
SECURITY PROGRAM.
207 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND 500 500
AND CONTROL SYSTEM.
210 0305149N COBRA JUDY.............. 17,091 17,091
211 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 810 810
OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
(METOC).
212 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 8,617 8,617
PROGRAM (MIP)
ACTIVITIES.
213 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 9,066 9,066
VEHICLES.
215 0305207N MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 30,654 30,654
SYSTEMS.
216 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON 25,917 25,917
GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS.
217 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON 14,676 14,676
GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS.
218 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................ 657,483 657,483
219 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................ 99,600 99,600
220 0305232M RQ-11 UAV............... 495 495
221 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................ 863 863
223 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 9,734 9,734
UAS (STUASL0).
225 0305239M RQ-21A.................. 22,343 22,343
226 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,908 5,908
SUPPORT.
227 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 27,391 27,391
IF).
229 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS. 54,879 54,879
230 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 5,000 5,000
(MARITECH).
230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS..... 1,151,159 200,000 1,351,159
...................... Program increase.... [200,000]
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,975,546 271,550 4,247,096
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 16,882,877 835,525 17,718,402
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH 361,787 361,787
SCIENCES.
2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 141,153 141,153
INITIATIVES.
3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 13,094 13,094
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
...................... SUBTOTAL BASIC 516,034 516,034
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602102F MATERIALS............... 114,166 114,166
5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 120,719 120,719
TECHNOLOGIES.
6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 89,319 89,319
APPLIED RESEARCH.
7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION.... 232,547 232,547
8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS....... 127,637 127,637
9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY........ 98,375 98,375
10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS.. 77,175 77,175
11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 106,196 106,196
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 104,362 104,362
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 38,557 38,557
RESEARCH.
...................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,109,053 1,109,053
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 47,890 10,000 57,890
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
...................... Increase Materials [10,000]
Affordability
Initiative program.
15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 6,565 6,565
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 37,657 37,657
SENSORS.
17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 81,376 81,376
DEMO.
18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 151,152 151,152
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 32,941 32,941
TECHNOLOGY.
20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 64,557 64,557
TECHNOLOGY.
21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 29,256 29,256
SYSTEM (MSSS).
22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 21,523 21,523
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 36,352 36,352
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 19,004 19,004
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 37,045 37,045
PROGRAM.
26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 31,419 31,419
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 596,737 10,000 606,737
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES
28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 3,866 3,866
DEVELOPMENT.
29 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 3,704 3,704
EQUIPMENT.
30 0603430F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 229,171 -1,500 227,671
(SPACE).
...................... Project decrease.... [-1,500]
31 0603432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE). 120,676 120,676
32 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 25,144 -2,000 23,144
...................... Project decrease.... [-2,000]
33 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 32,243 32,243
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,507 4,507
DEVELOPMENT.
35 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE 652 652
COOPERATIVE R&D.
36 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM 10,429 10,429
(SPP).
37 0603850F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 19,938 19,938
SERVICE--DEM/VAL.
38 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 71,181 71,181
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
39 0603854F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 12,027 12,027
RDT&E (SPACE).
40 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION-- 2,054 2,054
DEM/VAL.
41 0603860F JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 57,975 57,975
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--
DEM/VAL.
42 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE....... 291,742 291,742
43 0604283F BATTLE MGMT COM & CTRL 114,417 114,417
SENSOR DEVELOPMENT.
44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER..... 2,576 2,576
45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 16,711 16,711
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
47 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS 16,343 16,343
AND MATURATION.
48 0604422F WEATHER SATELLITE FOLLOW- 2,000 2,000
ON.
50 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS 9,423 9,423
FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
54 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 25,000 25,000
SPACE.
...................... Operationally [25,000]
Responsive Space.
55 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM. 37,558 -3,000 34,558
...................... Project decrease.... [-3,000]
56 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 96,840 96,840
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(USER EQUIPMENT)
(SPACE).
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,181,177 18,500 1,199,677
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
58 0603840F GLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE 14,652 14,652
(GBS).
59 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT. 25,713 25,713
60 0604233F SPECIALIZED 6,583 6,583
UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT
TRAINING.
61 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 1,975 1,975
DEVELOPMENT.
62 0604280F JOINT TACTICAL RADIO.... 2,594 2,594
63 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 24,534 24,534
ENTERPRISE.
64 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 51 51
EQUIPMENT.
65 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 143,000 143,000
(SDB)--EMD.
66 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.... 28,797 28,797
67 0604425F SPACE SITUATION 267,252 267,252
AWARENESS SYSTEMS.
68 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 4,118 4,118
ATTACK.
69 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 448,594 -2,000 446,594
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
...................... Project decrease.... [-2,000]
70 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 9,951 9,951
DEVELOPMENT.
71 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............ 2,567 2,567
72 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.... 13,059 13,059
73 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.... 9,720 9,720
74 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES.. 9,222 9,222
76 0604750F INTELLIGENCE EQUIPMENT.. 803 803
77 0604800F F-35--EMD............... 1,210,306 1,210,306
78 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL 135,437 135,437
BALLISTIC MISSILE--EMD.
79 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 7,980 7,980
LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM
(SPACE)--EMD.
80 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 2,004 2,004
WEAPON.
81 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION. 73,512 73,512
82 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 140,100 140,100
INCREMENT 3.2B.
83 0605221F NEXT GENERATION AERIAL 1,815,588 1,815,588
REFUELING AIRCRAFT.
84 0605229F CSAR HH-60 123,210 123,210
RECAPITALIZATION.
85 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E... 19,039 19,039
86 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 281,056 281,056
SYSTEM.
87 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 80,200 80,200
MODERNIZATION.
89 0207604F READINESS TRAINING 310 310
RANGES, OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE.
90 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 14,861 14,861
TRAINING.
91 0305230F MC-12................... 19,949 19,949
92 0401138F C-27J AIRLIFT SQUADRONS. 25,000 25,000
...................... Joint Cargo Aircraft [25,000]
93 0401318F CV-22................... 28,027 28,027
94 0401845F AIRBORNE SENIOR LEADER 1,960 1,960
C3 (SLC3S).
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 4,966,724 23,000 4,989,724
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
95 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 22,812 22,812
DEVELOPMENT.
96 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.... 42,236 42,236
97 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE.. 25,579 25,579
99 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 16,197 16,197
& EVALUATION.
100 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 722,071 722,071
SUPPORT.
101 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 16,200 16,200
PROGRAM (SPACE).
102 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) 10,051 34,950 45,001
...................... Program increase.... [34,950]
103 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 42,597 42,597
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
104 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,301 27,301
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
105 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS 13,964 13,964
ENGINEERING INITIATIVE.
106 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 203,766 203,766
(SMC) CIVILIAN
WORKFORCE.
107 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 42,430 42,430
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
108 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING.. 1,294 1,294
111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES 3,851 3,851
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,190,349 34,950 1,225,299
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
112 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING 371,595 -1,500 370,095
SYSTEM III--OPERATIONAL
CONTROL SEGMENT.
...................... Project decrease.... [-1,500]
114 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 91,697 91,697
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-
IPPS).
115 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 17,037 17,037
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
117 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS.......... 53,208 53,208
118 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 431 431
MISSILE (ALCM).
119 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS.......... 16,265 16,265
120 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS........... 35,970 35,970
121 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING 30,889 30,889
SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM.
122 0101314F NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM.. 10 10
124 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 5,609 5,609
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
126 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID 15,098 15,098
ACQUISITION PROCESS
(WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION
FUND.
127 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................ 147,971 147,971
128 0207040F MULTI-PLATFORM 49,848 49,848
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT.
129 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS.......... 13,538 13,538
130 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS.......... 190,257 190,257
131 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS......... 192,677 192,677
132 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 13,683 13,683
SUPPRESSION.
133 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS......... 371,667 371,667
134 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS.......... 8,117 8,117
135 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES... 8,234 8,234
136 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE 87,041 87,041
AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE
(AMRAAM).
137 0207170F JOINT HELMET MOUNTED 1,472 1,472
CUEING SYSTEM (JHMCS).
138 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND 2,095 2,095
RECOVERY.
139 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE-- 1,119 1,119
PARARESCUE.
140 0207247F AF TENCAP............... 63,853 63,853
141 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,063 1,063
PROCUREMENT.
142 0207253F COMPASS CALL............ 12,094 12,094
143 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE 187,984 187,984
COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
145 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 7,950 7,950
STANDOFF MISSILE
(JASSM).
146 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 76,315 76,315
CENTER (AOC).
147 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 8,653 8,653
CENTER (CRC).
148 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 65,200 65,200
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
149 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE 5,767 5,767
CONTROL SYSTEMS.
152 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 5,756 5,756
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
154 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 16,226 16,226
PARTY-MOD.
156 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK 1,633 1,633
157 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) 18,086 18,086
CONSTELLATION.
158 0207452F DCAPES.................. 15,690 15,690
159 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/ 24,241 24,241
TARGET ATTACK RADAR
SYSTEM (JSTARS).
160 0207590F SEEK EAGLE.............. 22,654 22,654
161 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 15,501 15,501
SIMULATION.
162 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 5,699 5,699
CENTERS.
163 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,425 4,425
EXERCISES.
164 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS 69,377 69,377
165 0208021F INFORMATION WARFARE 7,159 7,159
SUPPORT.
166 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES 66,888 66,888
174 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,056 12,056
INTELLIGENCE.
175 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 4,159 4,159
OPERATIONS CENTER
(NAOC).
176 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 20,124 20,124
EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
177 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 69,133 69,133
SECURITY PROGRAM.
178 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 6,512 6,512
SYSTEM.
179 0303150F GLOBAL COMMAND AND 4,316 4,316
CONTROL SYSTEM.
180 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS..... 107,237 107,237
182 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 129,106 129,106
ENTERPRISE.
185 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,461 4,461
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
186 0305103F CYBER SECURITY 2,055 2,055
INITIATIVE.
187 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER.. 285 285
188 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL 33,773 33,773
NETWORK (SPACE).
189 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE......... 29,048 29,048
190 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 43,187 43,187
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
191 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS.......... 50,496 50,496
194 0305128F SECURITY AND 354 354
INVESTIGATIVE
ACTIVITIES.
195 0305145F ARMS CONTROL 4,000 4,000
IMPLEMENTATION.
196 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 342 342
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
198 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 29,621 29,621
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(USER EQUIPMENT)
(SPACE).
199 0305165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 14,335 14,335
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE AND CONTROL
SEGMENTS).
201 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 3,680 3,680
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
202 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION AND 2,430 2,430
DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
203 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 8,760 8,760
(SPACE).
205 0305202F DRAGON U-2.............. 23,644 23,644
206 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED 21,000 21,000
AERIAL VEHICLES.
207 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 96,735 96,735
SYSTEMS.
208 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,316 13,316
SYSTEMS.
209 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON 63,501 63,501
GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS.
210 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV..... 9,122 9,122
211 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................ 236,265 236,265
212 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 7,367 7,367
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
213 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL).. 38,094 38,094
214 0305238F NATO AGS................ 210,109 210,109
215 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 24,500 24,500
ENTERPRISE.
216 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT... 318,992 318,992
217 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM.... 54,645 54,645
218 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION. 4,007 4,007
219 0305887F INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO 13,357 13,357
INFORMATION WARFARE.
220 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 64,965 64,965
(SPACE).
221 0305940F SPACE SITUATION 19,586 19,586
AWARENESS OPERATIONS.
223 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING 1,175 1,175
(SEW).
224 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON.. 5,000 5,000
225 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 35,115 35,115
(IF).
226 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)...... 99,225 99,225
227 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM.......... 30,652 30,652
228 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 7,758 7,758
COUNTERMEASURES
(LAIRCM).
229 0401139F LIGHT MOBILITY AIRCRAFT 100 100
(LIMA).
231 0401219F KC-10S.................. 24,022 24,022
232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 7,471 7,471
AIRLIFT.
234 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS/COMBAT 4,984 4,984
CONTROL.
235 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,588 1,588
IF).
236 0708012F LOGISTICS SUPPORT 577 577
ACTIVITIES.
237 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 119,327 119,327
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
238 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 15,873 15,873
DEVELOPMENT.
240 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING... 349 349
242 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 117 117
ACTIVITIES.
243 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,018 2,018
AGENCY.
244 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 1,561 1,561
PROGRAM.
245 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 7,634 7,634
246 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,175 1,175
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
247 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION-- 3,491 3,491
ADMINISTRATIVE.
248 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 100,160 100,160
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS..... 11,172,183 11,172,183
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 15,867,972 -1,500 15,866,472
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 25,428,046 84,950 25,512,996
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 45,071 45,071
INITIATIVE.
2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH 309,051 309,051
SCIENCES.
3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 19,405 19,405
INITIATIVES.
4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL 39,676 39,676
MEDICAL RESEARCH
SCIENCE.
5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 87,979 87,979
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
6 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 50,566 50,566
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
...................... SUBTOTAL BASIC 551,748 551,748
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... APPLIED RESEARCH
7 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 20,615 20,615
TECHNOLOGY.
8 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY... 110,900 110,900
9 0602228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 10,000 10,000
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES (HBCU)
SCIENCE.
...................... Program increase.... [10,000]
10 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 36,826 36,826
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
11 0602250D8Z SYSTEMS 2020 APPLIED 7,898 7,898
RESEARCH.
12 0602303E INFORMATION & 392,421 392,421
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
13 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING 30,424 30,424
SYSTEMS.
15 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 19,236 19,236
DEFENSE.
16 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 223,269 223,269
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
17 0602663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS 13,753 13,753
APPLIED RESEARCH.
18 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH. 18,985 18,985
19 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND 6,771 6,771
CULTURE BEHAVIOR
MODELING (HSCB) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
20 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY..... 233,209 233,209
21 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 166,067 166,067
TECHNOLOGY.
22 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY.. 222,416 222,416
23 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS 172,352 172,352
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
TECHNOLOGIES.
24 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 28,739 28,739
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
...................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,703,881 10,000 1,713,881
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT (ATD)
25 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,612 25,612
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED 26,324 26,324
DEVELOPMENT.
27 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 77,144 77,144
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
28 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 275,022 275,022
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERAT
ION PREVENTION AND
DEFEAT.
29 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE 79,975 79,975
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 20,032 20,032
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
32 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 3,892 3,892
THE 21ST CENTURY
(AT21)--THEATER
CAPABILITY.
33 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 36,685 36,685
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 174,316 -25,000 149,316
SYSTEMS.
...................... Program decrease.... [-25,000]
35 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 159,704 159,704
TECHNOLOGY.
36 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 234,280 234,280
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
37 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC 6,983 6,983
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
38 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 158,263 158,263
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
39 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 25,393 25,393
CAPABILITIES.
40 0603663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS 13,754 13,754
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
42 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED 19,935 19,935
RESEARCH.
43 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND 8,235 8,235
CULTURE BEHAVIOR
MODELING (HSCB)
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
44 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 21,966 21,966
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
45 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 24,662 24,662
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
47 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 24,605 24,605
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
48 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND 30,678 30,678
DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE
TECHNOLOGY.
49 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 65,282 65,282
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
50 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 72,234 10,000 82,234
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
...................... Program increase.... [10,000]
51 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING 8,403 8,403
PROGRAM.
52 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 111,008 111,008
TECHNOLOGIES.
54 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 237,859 -25,000 212,859
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
...................... Program reduction... [-25,000]
55 0603765E CLASSIFIED DARPA 3,000 3,000
PROGRAMS.
56 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 236,883 236,883
TECHNOLOGY.
57 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY....... 299,438 299,438
58 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 12,195 12,195
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
59 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 30,036 30,036
INSTITUTE.
60 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 107,002 107,002
PROJECTS.
62 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION... 21,230 21,230
63 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND 47,433 47,433
SIMULATION MANAGEMENT
OFFICE.
64 0603901C DIRECTED ENERGY RESEARCH 46,944 30,000 76,944
...................... Program increase.... [30,000]
65 0603902C NEXT GENERATION AEGIS 224,077 224,077
MISSILE.
66 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION 92,602 92,602
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY.
68 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 26,244 26,244
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
69 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............ 53,946 53,946
70 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 45,317 45,317
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
71 1160422BB AVIATION ENGINEERING 861 861
ANALYSIS.
72 1160472BB SOF INFORMATION AND 4,959 4,959
BROADCAST SYSTEMS
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,194,413 -10,000 3,184,413
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT (ATD).
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES
73 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 33,234 33,234
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
74 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH........... 21,023 21,023
75 0603600D8Z WALKOFF................. 94,624 94,624
77 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSOR 16,958 16,958
APPLICATIONS PROGRAM.
78 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 75,941 75,941
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
79 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE 316,929 316,929
DEFENSE TERMINAL
DEFENSE SEGMENT.
80 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE 903,172 460,000 1,363,172
DEFENSE MIDCOURSE
DEFENSE SEGMENT.
...................... East Coast site [103,000]
planning and
development, and EIS
work.
...................... Program increase.... [357,000]
81 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 179,023 179,023
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/
VAL.
82 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE 347,012 347,012
DEFENSE SENSORS.
84 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS... 362,711 362,711
85 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA... 272,387 272,387
86 0603892C AEGIS BMD............... 992,407 992,407
87 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 51,313 51,313
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
88 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE 6,912 6,912
DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE
PROGRAMS.
89 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE 366,552 366,552
DEFENSE COMMAND AND
CONTROL, BATTLE
MANAGEMENT &
COMMUNICATION.
90 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE 55,550 55,550
DEFENSE JOINT
WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
91 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 63,043 63,043
INTEGRATION &
OPERATIONS CENTER
(MDIOC).
92 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH........ 11,371 11,371
93 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 9,730 9,730
(SBX).
94 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 99,836 168,000 267,836
PROGRAMS.
...................... Increase to DSWS, [168,000]
ASIP, Arrow-3
cooperative programs.
95 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE 454,400 454,400
DEFENSE TEST.
96 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE 435,747 435,747
DEFENSE TARGETS.
97 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING... 13,231 13,231
98 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE....... 11,398 11,398
99 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,283 3,283
CORROSION PROGRAM.
100 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 12,368 12,368
(DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON
DEVELOPMENT.
101 0604670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND 5,131 5,131
CULTURE BEHAVIOR
MODELING (HSCB)
RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING.
104 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS 3,273 3,273
INTEGRATION.
106 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION 7,364 7,364
AND INTEROPERABILITY
TEAM.
107 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3). 276,338 276,338
108 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 420,630 420,630
DEVELOPMENT.
109 0604883C PRECISION TRACKING SPACE 297,375 -247,375 50,000
SENSOR RDT&E.
...................... Project decrease to [-247,375]
support technology
development.
111 0604886C ADVANCED REMOTE SENSOR 58,742 58,742
TECHNOLOGY (ARST).
113 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,158 3,158
TECHNOLOGY (JET)
PROGRAM.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 6,282,166 380,625 6,662,791
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION (SDD)
115 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 6,817 6,817
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
116 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 110,383 110,383
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
117 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 311,071 311,071
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES 25,787 25,787
JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
(AITS-JPO).
120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 20,688 20,688
INFORMATION
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(JTIDS).
121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS 5,749 5,749
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
CAPABILITIES.
122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,699 12,699
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 387 387
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
126 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 1,859 1,859
PROGRAM.
127 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 7,010 7,010
INITIATIVES.
128 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 133,104 133,104
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
129 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 25,269 25,269
INTEGRATION.
131 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 10,238 10,238
PROCUREMENT
CAPABILITIES.
132 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 19,670 19,670
SYSTEM.
133 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,556 3,556
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 694,287 694,287
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION (SDD).
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 6,383 6,383
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 3,845 3,845
ARCHITECTURE
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 144,109 144,109
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 2,419 2,419
EVALUATIONS.
139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR........... 8,214 8,214
140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION 19,380 19,380
ENVIRONMENT TEST
CAPABILITY (JMETC).
141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 32,266 32,266
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
142 0605110D8Z USD(A&T)--CRITICAL 840 840
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL 56,012 56,012
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 55,508 55,508
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 18,174 18,174
TESTING.
147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING..... 43,195 43,195
148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 6,457 6,457
SUPPORT--OSD.
149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 4,901 4,901
SECURITY.
150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 6,307 6,307
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 6,601 6,601
(INTELLIGENCE).
152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 92,849 92,849
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS 1,857 1,857
INNOVATION RESEARCH
(SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (S.
160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 12,056 12,056
ANALYSIS.
162 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 55,454 55,454
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
163 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 16,364 16,364
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
164 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 15,110 15,110
EVALUATION.
166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D...... 69,767 69,767
167 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,454 4,454
ASSESSMENTS.
169 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 2,637 2,637
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 8,238 8,238
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
176 0305103E CYBER SECURITY 1,801 1,801
INITIATIVE.
177 0305193D8Z INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO 16,041 16,041
INFORMATION OPERATIONS
(IO).
180 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE 77,475 77,475
ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2).
182 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA...... 34,855 34,855
183 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 104 104
WHS.
184A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS..... 64,255 64,255
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 887,928 887,928
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
185 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 8,866 8,866
SYSTEM (ESS).
186 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 3,238 3,238
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MGMT.
187 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 288 288
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 14,745 14,745
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND 5,013 5,013
INTEROPERABILITY.
191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION 3,922 3,922
AID SYSTEM (PDAS).
192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY.... 72,574 72,574
194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,214 6,214
INFORMATION SHARING.
201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY 499 499
COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE
SUPPORT.
202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 14,498 14,498
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
203 0303126K LONG-HAUL 26,164 26,164
COMMUNICATIONS--DCS.
204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 12,931 12,931
EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY 6,296 6,296
INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI).
206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 30,948 30,948
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 11,780 11,780
SECURITY PROGRAM.
208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 191,452 50,000 241,452
SECURITY PROGRAM.
...................... Program increase.... [50,000]
211 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 36,575 10,000 46,575
CONTROL SYSTEM.
...................... Program increase.... [10,000]
212 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 24,278 24,278
ORGANIZATION.
213 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 2,924 2,924
SERVICES (NCES).
214 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,294 1,294
DECEPTION PROGRAM
OFFICE (DMDPO).
215 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM........ 6,050 6,050
217 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 17,058 17,058
CONTINGENCIES.
222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY 4,189 4,189
INITIATIVE.
223 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 10,462 10,462
PROTECTION (CIP).
227 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS..... 6,360 6,360
229 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY.......... 21,190 21,190
232 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON 7,114 600 7,714
GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS.
...................... Program increase.... [600]
235 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON 3,247 3,247
GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS.
237 0305219BB MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV..... 1,355 1,355
240 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,303 2,303
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
241 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL 1,478 1,478
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
AND ARCHITECTURES.
249 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS. 27,044 27,044
250 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 4,711 4,711
ACTIVITIES.
251 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS..... 4,100 4,100
253 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................ 3,002 3,002
257 1160403BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 97,267 97,267
AVIATION SYSTEMS
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
258 1160404BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 821 821
TACTICAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
259 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS 25,935 25,935
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
260 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL 51,700 51,700
ENHANCEMENTS.
261 1160421BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS CV-22 1,822 1,822
DEVELOPMENT.
262 1160427BB MISSION TRAINING AND 10,131 10,131
PREPARATION SYSTEMS
(MTPS).
263 1160429BB AC/MC-130J.............. 19,647 19,647
264 1160474BB SOF COMMUNICATIONS 2,225 2,225
EQUIPMENT AND
ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS.
265 1160476BB SOF TACTICAL RADIO 3,036 3,036
SYSTEMS.
266 1160477BB SOF WEAPONS SYSTEMS..... 1,511 1,511
267 1160478BB SOF SOLDIER PROTECTION 4,263 4,263
AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS.
268 1160479BB SOF VISUAL AUGMENTATION, 4,448 4,448
LASERS AND SENSOR
SYSTEMS.
269 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES... 11,325 11,325
270 1160481BB SOF MUNITIONS........... 1,515 1,515
271 1160482BB SOF ROTARY WING AVIATION 24,430 24,430
272 1160483BB SOF UNDERWATER SYSTEMS.. 26,405 35,000 61,405
...................... Program increase.... [35,000]
273 1160484BB SOF SURFACE CRAFT....... 8,573 8,573
275 1160489BB SOF GLOBAL VIDEO 7,620 7,620
SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES.
276 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL 16,386 16,386
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS..... 3,754,516 19,900 3,774,416
...................... Program increases... [19,900]
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,667,738 115,500 4,783,238
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,982,161 496,125 18,478,286
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 72,501 35,000 107,501
EVALUATION.
...................... Program increase for [25,000]
DOT&E cyber--range
operations.
...................... Program increase for [10,000]
DOT&E cyber--threat
development and
assessment.
2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 49,201 49,201
EVALUATION.
3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 63,566 63,566
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 185,268 35,000 220,268
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL 185,268 35,000 220,268
TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE.
......................
...................... TOTAL RDT&E........ 69,407,767 979,489 70,387,256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 19,860 19,860
SURVIVABILITY.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 19,860 19,860
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 19,860 19,860
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
56 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 4,600 4,600
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,600 4,600
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
131 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 2,173 2,173
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 2,173 2,173
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
160 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 5,200 5,200
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 5,200 5,200
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
195 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 6,762 6,762
SERVICES SUPPORT.
221 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................. 7,600 7,600
230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 33,784 33,784
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 48,146 48,146
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 60,119 60,119
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 53,150 53,150
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 53,150 53,150
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 53,150 53,150
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... APPLIED RESEARCH
9 0602228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 10,000 10,000
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES (HBCU)
SCIENCE.
...................... Program increase..... [10,000]
...................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 10,000 10,000
RESEARCH.
......................
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT (ATD)
27 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
...................... Program increase..... [25,000]
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
(ATD).
......................
94 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 680,000 680,000
PROGRAMS.
...................... Iron Dome............ [680,000]
102 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 200,000 200,000
PROGRAM.
...................... Program increase..... [200,000]
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 880,000 880,000
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
& PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
239 0305231BB MQ-8 UAV................. 5,000 5,000
276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 107,387 107,387
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 112,387 112,387
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 112,387 915,000 1,027,387
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... TOTAL RDT&E......... 245,516 915,000 1,160,516
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
10 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,223,087 1,223,087
20 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 80,574 80,574
30 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 723,039 723,039
40 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 706,974 706,974
50 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,226,650 1,226,650
60 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,319,832 1,319,832
70 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,447,174 3,447,174
80 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 454,774 454,774
90 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,762,757 1,762,757
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 7,401,613 7,401,613
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 3,041,074 193,600 3,234,674
MODERNIZATION..................................
Realignment to Cemeterial Expenses, Army.... [-25,000]
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [218,600]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 410,171 410,171
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 177,819 177,819
170 COMBATANT COMMANDERS ANCILLARY MISSIONS......... 461,333 461,333
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 22,436,871 193,600 22,630,471
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 405,496 405,496
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONING STOCKS...................... 195,349 195,349
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 6,379 6,379
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 607,224 607,224
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 112,866 112,866
220 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 73,265 73,265
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 51,227 51,227
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 443,306 443,306
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 1,099,556 1,099,556
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 1,130,627 1,130,627
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 191,683 191,683
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 652,095 652,095
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 507,510 507,510
300 EXAMINING....................................... 156,964 156,964
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 244,343 244,343
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 212,477 212,477
330 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 182,691 182,691
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 5,058,610 5,058,610
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 601,331 601,331
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 741,324 741,324
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 610,136 610,136
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 478,707 478,707
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 556,307 556,307
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,547,925 1,547,925
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 362,205 362,205
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 220,754 220,754
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,153,556 -3,047 1,150,509
Army Museum Funding (Early to need)......... [-3,047]
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 250,970 250,970
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 222,351 222,351
460 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 222,379 222,379
470 SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATIONS...................... 459,710 459,710
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 25,637 25,637
490 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,052,595 1,052,595
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 8,505,887 -3,047 8,502,840
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
500 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -350,700 -350,700
Army Medical Evacuation Paramedic [5,000]
Certification Training......................
Historical unobligated balances............. [-289,200]
Overestimate of Foreign Currency Fluctuation [-66,500]
Costs.......................................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -350,700 -350,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 36,608,592 -160,147 36,448,445
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
10 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,918,144 9,000 4,927,144
Cruiser Retention........................... [9,000]
20 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 1,886,825 1,886,825
30 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 44,032 44,032
40 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 101,565 101,565
50 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 374,827 374,827
60 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 960,802 960,802
70 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 37,545 37,545
80 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 328,805 328,805
90 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 4,686,535 24,650 4,711,185
Cruiser Retention........................... [24,650]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 769,204 769,204
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 5,089,981 67,963 5,157,944
Cruiser Retention........................... [67,963]
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,315,366 13,871 1,329,237
Cruiser Retention........................... [13,871]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 619,909 619,909
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.............................. 92,364 92,364
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 174,437 174,437
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 441,035 441,035
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 333,554 333,554
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 910,087 910,087
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 167,158 167,158
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................ 4,183 4,183
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 95,528 95,528
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 204,569 204,569
230 CRUISE MISSILE.................................. 111,884 111,884
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,181,038 1,181,038
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 87,606 87,606
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 519,583 519,583
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 300,435 300,435
280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 1,077,924 1,077,924
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 2,101,279 54,600 2,155,879
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [54,600]
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,822,093 4,822,093
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 33,758,297 170,084 33,928,381
MOBILIZATION
310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 334,659 334,659
320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 6,562 6,562
330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 1,066,329 -479,000 587,329
Cruiser Retention........................... [-9,000]
Fiscal year 2013 portion of USS ENTERPRISE [-470,000]
Inactivation Costs..........................
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 83,901 83,901
350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................ 2,695 2,695
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 23,502 23,502
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 1,517,648 -479,000 1,038,648
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
370 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 147,807 147,807
380 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 10,473 10,473
390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 139,220 139,220
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 582,177 582,177
410 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 5,456 5,456
420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 170,746 170,746
430 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 153,403 153,403
440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 241,329 938 242,267
Naval Sea Cadet Corps....................... [938]
450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 108,226 108,226
460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 105,776 105,776
470 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 51,817 51,817
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,716,430 938 1,717,368
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 797,177 797,177
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 12,872 12,872
500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 120,181 120,181
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 235,753 235,753
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 263,060 263,060
530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 363,213 363,213
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 182,343 182,343
570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................ 282,464 282,464
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 1,092,123 1,092,123
590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT......... 53,560 53,560
600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.......................... 25,299 25,299
610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............ 64,418 64,418
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 580,042 580,042
680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES......... 4,984 4,984
710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 537,079 537,079
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 4,614,568 4,614,568
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
720 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -166,400 -166,400
Historical unobligated balances............. [-166,400]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -166,400 -166,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 41,606,943 -474,378 41,132,565
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
10 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 788,055 788,055
20 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 762,614 762,614
30 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 168,447 168,447
40 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 100,374 100,374
50 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 825,039 22,800 847,839
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [22,800]
60 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,188,883 2,188,883
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,833,412 22,800 4,856,212
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
70 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 18,251 18,251
80 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 869 869
90 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 80,914 80,914
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 42,744 42,744
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 292,150 292,150
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 168,609 10,000 178,609
Recruiting and advertising.................. [10,000]
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 56,865 56,865
140 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 19,912 19,912
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 680,314 10,000 690,314
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 39,962 39,962
170 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 83,404 83,404
190 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 346,071 346,071
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 469,437 469,437
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
200 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -23,900 -23,900
Historical unobligated balances............. [-23,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -23,900 -23,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 5,983,163 8,900 5,992,063
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
10 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 2,973,141 2,973,141
20 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,611,032 133,000 1,744,032
Global Hawk Block 30........................ [133,000]
30 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,472,806 1,472,806
40 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 5,545,470 5,545,470
50 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 1,353,987 215,500 1,569,487
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [215,500]
60 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 2,595,032 2,595,032
70 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 957,040 957,040
80 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 916,200 916,200
100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES..... 733,716 733,716
110 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 314,490 314,490
120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 488,762 488,762
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 862,979 862,979
140 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 222,429 222,429
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 20,047,084 348,500 20,395,584
MOBILIZATION
150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 1,785,379 1,785,379
160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 154,049 154,049
170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,477,396 1,477,396
180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 309,699 309,699
MODERNIZATION..................................
190 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 707,574 707,574
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 4,434,097 4,434,097
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
200 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 115,427 115,427
210 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 17,619 17,619
220 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 92,949 92,949
230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 336,433 336,433
MODERNIZATION..................................
240 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 842,441 842,441
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 482,634 482,634
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 750,609 750,609
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 235,114 235,114
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 101,231 101,231
290 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 233,330 233,330
310 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 130,217 130,217
320 EXAMINING....................................... 2,738 2,738
330 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 155,170 155,170
340 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 175,147 175,147
350 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 74,809 74,809
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 3,745,868 3,745,868
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
360 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 1,029,734 1,029,734
370 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 913,843 913,843
390 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 303,610 303,610
MODERNIZATION..................................
400 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,266,800 1,266,800
410 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 587,654 587,654
420 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 667,910 667,910
430 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 1,094,509 1,094,509
440 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 23,904 23,904
470 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 81,307 81,307
480 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,239,040 1,239,040
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 7,208,311 7,208,311
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
490 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -43,700 -43,700
Historical unobligated balances............. [-141,700]
Overestimate of Foreign Currency Fluctuation [-32,000]
Costs.......................................
Retain Air Force Force Structure............ [130,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -43,700 -43,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 35,435,360 304,800 35,740,160
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
10 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 485,708 485,708
20 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 5,091,001 5,091,001
Transfer from line 025...................... [5,091,001]
25 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 5,091,001 -5,091,001
Transfer to Line 020........................ [-5,091,001]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,576,709 5,576,709
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
30 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 147,210 -2,500 144,710
Program decrease............................ [-2,500]
40 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY..................... 84,999 -2,500 82,499
Program decrease............................ [-2,500]
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 232,209 -5,000 227,209
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
50 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 161,294 161,294
80 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 573,973 573,973
90 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,293,196 1,293,196
100 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE.......... 17,513 17,513
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 676,186 676,186
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 1,346,847 1,346,847
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 35,137 35,137
150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 431,893 431,893
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 224,013 224,013
170 DEFENSE POW/MIA OFFICE.......................... 21,964 21,964
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 557,917 557,917
190 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 506,662 506,662
Transfer from Line 280...................... [506,662]
200 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 35,319 35,319
210 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY................. 443,382 443,382
Transfer from Line 280...................... [443,382]
220 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,744,971 2,744,971
230 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 259,975 259,975
250 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 253,437 253,437
260 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 2,095,362 40,000 2,135,362
Advancing Diversity and EO.................. [5,000]
Office of Net Assessment.................... [10,000]
Readiness Environmental Protection [25,000]
Initiative..................................
270 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICE................. 521,297 521,297
280 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,933,801 -888,044 14,045,757
Program increase............................ [62,000]
Transfer to Line 190........................ [-506,662]
Transfer to Line 210........................ [-443,382]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 26,184,095 102,000 26,286,095
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
290 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -107,700 -107,700
DOD Impact Aid.............................. [30,000]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-128,000]
Overestimate of Foreign Currency Fluctuation [-9,700]
Costs.......................................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -107,700 -107,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 31,993,013 -10,700 31,982,313
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
10 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,391 1,391
20 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 20,889 20,889
30 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 592,724 592,724
40 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 114,983 114,983
50 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 633,091 633,091
60 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 76,823 76,823
70 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 481,997 481,997
80 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 70,118 70,118
90 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 141,205 141,205
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 561,878 561,878
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 287,399 20,700 308,099
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [20,700]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 52,431 52,431
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,034,929 20,700 3,055,629
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
140 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 12,995 12,995
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 32,432 32,432
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 4,895 4,895
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 16,074 16,074
180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 60,683 60,683
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 127,079 127,079
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
190 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... 1,100 1,100
Army Medical Evacuation Paramedic [5,000]
Certification Training......................
Deny request of increase for technicians.... [-3,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... 1,100 1,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 3,162,008 21,800 3,183,808
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
10 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 616,776 616,776
20 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 15,076 15,076
30 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 1,479 1,479
40 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 107,251 107,251
50 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 355 355
60 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 82,186 82,186
70 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 589 589
80 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 48,593 48,593
90 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 15,274 15,274
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 124,917 124,917
110 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 1,978 1,978
120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 43,699 43,699
130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 60,646 60,646
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 105,227 105,227
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,224,046 1,224,046
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 3,117 3,117
160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 14,337 14,337
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,392 2,392
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,090 3,090
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 22,936 22,936
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 1,246,982 1,246,982
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
10 OPERATING FORCES................................ 89,690 89,690
20 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 16,735 16,735
30 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 37,913 37,913
40 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 103,746 103,746
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 248,084 248,084
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
50 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 873 873
60 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 14,330 14,330
70 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 8,998 8,998
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 24,201 24,201
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 272,285 272,285
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
10 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 2,089,326 2,089,326
20 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 112,992 112,992
30 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 406,101 406,101
40 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 71,564 6,700 78,264
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [6,700]
50 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 364,862 364,862
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,044,845 6,700 3,051,545
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
60 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 78,824 78,824
70 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 16,020 16,020
80 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 19,496 19,496
90 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 6,489 6,489
100 AUDIOVISUAL..................................... 808 808
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 121,637 121,637
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
110 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... 161,617 161,617
Retain Air Force Reserve Force Structure.... [161,617]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... 161,617 161,617
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 3,166,482 168,317 3,334,799
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
10 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 680,206 680,206
20 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 186,408 186,408
30 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 865,628 865,628
40 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 112,651 112,651
50 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 36,091 36,091
60 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 907,011 907,011
70 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 751,606 751,606
80 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 60,043 60,043
90 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 411,940 411,940
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 995,423 995,423
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 688,189 49,400 737,589
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [49,400]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 953,716 953,716
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,648,912 49,400 6,698,312
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 11,806 11,806
140 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,656 1,656
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 89,358 89,358
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 39,513 39,513
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 7,224 7,224
180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 310,143 310,143
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 459,700 459,700
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
190 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -79,700 -79,700
Army Medical Evacuation Paramedic [5,000]
Certification Training......................
Deny request of increase for technicians.... [-95,000]
Retain Army National Guard Force Structure.. [10,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -79,700 -79,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 7,108,612 -30,300 7,078,312
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
10 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,559,824 3,505 3,563,329
Aerospace Control Alert..................... [3,505]
20 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 721,225 721,225
30 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 774,875 774,875
40 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 270,709 24,700 295,409
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restoration and Modernization of Facilities. [24,700]
50 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 624,443 624,443
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,951,076 28,205 5,979,281
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
60 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 32,358 32,358
70 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 32,021 32,021
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 64,379 64,379
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
80 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... 286,800 286,800
Retain Air National Guard Force Structure... [286,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... 286,800 286,800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 6,015,455 315,005 6,330,460
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
20 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 108,759 108,759
30 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 519,111 519,111
40 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD............................ 274,198 274,198
50 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 335,921 335,921
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 1,237,989 1,237,989
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
60 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 310,594 310,594
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 310,594 310,594
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
70 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 529,263 529,263
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 529,263 529,263
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
10 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 13,516 13,516
DEFENSE........................................
80 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 11,133 11,133
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 24,649 24,649
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
90 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 237,543 237,543
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 237,543 237,543
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS......... 2,340,038 2,340,038
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 174,938,933 143,297 175,082,230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
40 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 2,758,162 2,758,162
50 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 991,396 991,396
60 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 40,300 40,300
70 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 1,755,445 1,755,445
80 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 307,244 307,244
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 393,165 393,165
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 250,000 250,000
MODERNIZATION..................................
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 12,524,137 -129,000 12,395,137
Reduction to Task Force for Business and [-129,000]
Stability Operations........................
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 400,000 -200,000 200,000
Historical underexecution................... [-200,000]
160 RESET........................................... 3,687,973 -250,000 3,437,973
Unexecutable depot-level maintenance........ [-250,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 23,107,822 -579,000 22,528,822
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 3,238,310 3,238,310
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 129,000 129,000
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 78,022 78,022
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 137,277 137,277
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 72,293 72,293
490 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,828,717 1,828,717
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 5,483,619 5,483,619
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
500 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -179,700 -179,700
Historical unobligated balances............. [-179,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -179,700 -179,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 28,591,441 -758,700 27,832,741
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
10 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 937,098 937,098
30 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 1,000 1,000
40 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 15,794 15,794
50 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 19,013 19,013
60 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 201,912 201,912
70 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 3,000 3,000
80 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 44,150 44,150
90 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 463,738 463,738
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 24,774 24,774
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,310,010 1,310,010
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 42,965 42,965
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 25,970 25,970
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 19,226 19,226
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 1,668,359 1,668,359
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 7,954 7,954
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 94,655 94,655
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 303,087 303,087
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 3,218 3,218
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 143,442 143,442
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,329,365 5,329,365
MOBILIZATION
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 31,395 31,395
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 254,461 254,461
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 285,856 285,856
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 50,903 50,903
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 50,903 50,903
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,377 1,377
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 487 487
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 6,022 6,022
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 3,514 3,514
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 184,864 184,864
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 2,026 2,026
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 1,425 1,425
710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,556 14,556
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 214,271 214,271
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
720 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -22,100 -22,100
Historical unobligated balances............. [-22,100]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -22,100 -22,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 5,880,395 -22,100 5,858,295
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
10 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 1,921,258 1,921,258
20 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 1,094,028 1,094,028
30 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 222,824 222,824
60 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 88,690 88,690
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,326,800 3,326,800
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 215,212 215,212
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 215,212 215,212
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 512,627 512,627
190 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 11,701 11,701
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 524,328 524,328
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
200 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -15,600 -15,600
Historical unobligated balances............. [-15,600]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -15,600 -15,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 4,066,340 -15,600 4,050,740
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
10 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,494,144 1,494,144
20 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 809,531 809,531
30 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 13,095 13,095
40 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,403,238 1,403,238
50 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 155,954 155,954
MODERNIZATION..................................
60 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 342,226 342,226
70 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 15,108 15,108
80 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 271,390 271,390
100 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES..... 25,400 25,400
120 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 5,110 5,110
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 52,173 52,173
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,587,369 4,587,369
MOBILIZATION
150 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 3,187,211 3,187,211
160 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 43,509 43,509
170 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 554,943 554,943
180 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 4,431 4,431
MODERNIZATION..................................
190 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 9,256 9,256
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 3,799,350 3,799,350
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 424 424
MODERNIZATION..................................
240 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,036 1,036
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 10,923 10,923
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 72 72
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 323 323
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 352 352
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 13,130 13,130
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
360 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 100,429 100,429
390 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 47,200 47,200
MODERNIZATION..................................
400 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 7,242 7,242
410 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,552 1,552
420 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 82,094 82,094
430 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 582,977 582,977
480 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 20,270 20,270
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 841,764 841,764
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
490 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -34,700 -34,700
Historical unobligated balances............. [-34,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -34,700 -34,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 9,241,613 -34,700 9,206,913
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
10 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 2,000 2,000
20 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND...................... 2,503,060 2,503,060
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,505,060 2,505,060
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
80 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 30,674 30,674
90 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 69,803 69,803
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 3,334 3,334
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 152,925 152,925
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 102,322 102,322
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 10,823 10,823
180 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 2,200,000 -650,000 1,550,000
Program Decrease--Coalition Support Funds... [-650,000]
220 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 139,830 139,830
260 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 87,805 87,805
280 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 2,522,003 2,522,003
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 5,319,519 -650,000 4,669,519
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS
290 UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS....................... -29,300 -29,300
Historical unobligated balances............. [-29,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS.......... -29,300 -29,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 7,824,579 -679,300 7,145,279
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
30 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 78,600 78,600
50 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 20,811 20,811
70 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 20,726 20,726
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 34,400 34,400
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 154,537 154,537
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 154,537 154,537
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
10 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 24,834 24,834
20 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 300 300
40 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 13,364 13,364
60 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 8,213 8,213
80 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 929 929
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 8,244 8,244
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 40 40
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 55,924 55,924
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 55,924 55,924
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
10 OPERATING FORCES................................ 22,657 22,657
40 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,820 2,820
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 25,477 25,477
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 25,477 25,477
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
10 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 7,600 7,600
30 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 106,768 106,768
50 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 6,250 6,250
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 120,618 120,618
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 120,618 120,618
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
10 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 38,485 38,485
20 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 1,959 1,959
30 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 20,076 20,076
40 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 2,028 2,028
60 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 183,811 183,811
70 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 43,780 43,780
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 70,237 70,237
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HQ'S................. 20,072 20,072
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 380,448 380,448
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,000 2,000
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 2,000 2,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 382,448 382,448
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
20 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 19,975 19,975
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 19,975 19,975
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 19,975 19,975
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
10 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 2,523,825 2,523,825
20 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 190,000 190,000
30 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 241,521 241,521
40 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 758,380 758,380
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE................ 3,713,726 3,713,726
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
50 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 1,305,950 1,305,950
60 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 50,000 50,000
70 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 84,859 84,859
80 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 569,868 569,868
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR............... 2,010,677 2,010,677
RELATED ACTIVITIES
90 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 18,325 18,325
100 INFRASTRUCTUE................................... 1,200 1,200
110 EQUIPMENT & TRANSPORTATION...................... 1,239 1,239
120 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 4,000 4,000
SUBTOTAL RELATED ACTIVITIES................. 24,764 24,764
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..... 5,749,167 5,749,167
AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
10 POWER........................................... 400,000 -25,000 375,000
Program Decrease............................ [-25,000]
SUBTOTAL AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.... 400,000 -25,000 375,000
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND...... 400,000 -25,000 375,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 62,512,514 -1,535,400 60,977,114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL.................................. 135,111,799 615,056 135,726,855
Army medical evacuation paramedic certification 2,000
training.......................................
Basic allowance for housing for members of the 6,000
National Guard (Section 603)...................
Non-medical attendant travel (Section 621)..... 2,000
Reserve Components administrative absence 2,000
(Section 604)..................................
Restore accrual payments to the Medicare 672,000
eligible health care trust fund................
Retain 128 Air National Guard AGRs for two air 8,300
sovereignty alert locations....................
Retain Air Force Force Structure............... 30,000
Retain Air Force Reserve Force Structure....... 20,000
Retain Air National Guard Force Structure...... 70,826
Retain Global Hawk............................. 22,200
Unobligated balances........................... [-352,000]
USMC military personnel in lieu of LAV funding. 131,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL.................................. 14,060,094 14,060,094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS.................... 60,037 60,037
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 60,037 60,037
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS (MEDICAL/DENTAL)............. 45,452 45,452
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 45,452 45,452
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 39,135 39,135
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 39,135 39,135
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA.......................... 1,371,560 1,371,560
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,371,560 1,371,560
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
MPF MLP............................................. 38,000 38,000
POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING........................ 39,386 39,386
LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE........................ 128,819 128,819
DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS........................ 26,598 26,598
TAH MAINTENANCE..................................... 29,199 29,199
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................ 42,811 42,811
READY RESERVE FORCE................................. 303,323 303,323
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.......... 608,136 608,136
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 8,625,507 8,625,507
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 16,148,263 16,148,263
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 2,309,185 2,309,185
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,465,328 1,465,328
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 332,121 332,121
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 722,081 722,081
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,746,794 1,746,794
UNDISTRIBUTED, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 281,900 281,900
Foreign currency flucuation.................... [-5,100]
Overfunding in electronic health record........ [-30,000]
Restore estimated savings in TRICARE Prime and [273,000]
Standard enrollment fees and deductibles for
TRICARE Standard...............................
Restore pharmacy co-pay estimated savings...... [179,000]
TRICARE rate adjustments....................... [90,000]
Unobligated balances........................... [-225,000]
RDT&E............................................... 672,977 672,977
PROCUREMENT......................................... 506,462 -52,000 454,462
Overfunding in electronic health record........ [-52,000]
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 32,528,718 229,900 32,758,618
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 635,843 635,843
RDT&E............................................... 647,351 647,351
PROCUREMENT......................................... 18,592 18,592
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 1,301,786 1,301,786
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 889,545 889,545
DEFENSE............................................
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM....................... 109,818 109,818
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 999,363 999,363
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 272,821 272,821
PROCUREMENT......................................... 1,000 1,000
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 273,821 273,821
CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 41,000 41,000
CONSTRUCTION........................................ 4,800 4,800
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE.............................. 25,000 25,000
Realignment from Operation and Maintenance, [25,000]
Army...........................................
TOTAL CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY.............. 45,800 25,000 70,800
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 37,273,808 254,900 37,528,708
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
PREPOSITIONED WAR RESERVE STOCKS.................... 42,600 42,600
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 42,600 42,600
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
C-17 CLS ENGINE REPAIR.............................. 230,400 230,400
TRANSPORTATION FALLEN HEROES........................ 10,000 10,000
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 240,400 240,400
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 220,364 220,364
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 220,364 220,364
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 483,326 483,326
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 376,982 376,982
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 111,675 111,675
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 4,773 4,773
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 660 660
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 15,370 15,370
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,112 1,112
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 993,898 993,898
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES.............................. 469,025 469,025
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 469,025 469,025
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 10,766 10,766
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 10,766 10,766
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 1,977,053 1,977,053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army ALASKA FORT WAINWRIGHT MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE. 10,400 10,400
Army ALASKA JOINT BASE ELMENDORF- MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE. 7,900 7,900
RICHARDSON
Army CALIFORNIA CONCORD ENGINEERING/HOUSING 3,100 3,100
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
Army CALIFORNIA CONCORD LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM 5,800 5,800
Army COLORADO FORT CARSON CENTRAL ENERGY PLANT....... 0 0
Army COLORADO FORT CARSON, COLORADO DIGITAL MULTIPURPOSE 18,000 18,000
TRAINING RANGE.
Army DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FORT MCNAIR VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING, 7,200 7,200
INSTALLATION.
Army GEORGIA FORT BENNING GROUND SOURCE HEAT TRANSFER 16,000 16,000
SYSTEM.
Army GEORGIA FORT GORDON GROUND SOURCE HEAT TRANSFER 12,200 12,200
SYSTEM.
Army GEORGIA FORT GORDON MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE. 4,000 4,000
Army GEORGIA FORT GORDON MULTIPURPOSE MACHINE GUN 7,100 7,100
RANGE.
Army GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA AUTOMATED COMBAT PISTOL 3,650 3,650
QUAL CRSE.
Army GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA DIGITAL MULTIPURPOSE 22,000 22,000
TRAINING RANGE.
Army GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE 24,000 24,000
COMPLEX.
Army HAWAII POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA AUTOMATED INFANTRY PLATOON 29,000 29,000
BATTLE COURSE.
Army HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS BARRACKS................... 55,000 55,000
Army HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS BARRACKS................... 41,000 41,000
Army HAWAII WHEELER ARMY AIR FIELD COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE 85,000 85,000
BARRACKS.
Army ITALY CAMP EDERLE BARRACKS................... 36,000 36,000
Army ITALY VICENZA SIMULATIONS CENTER......... 32,000 32,000
Army JAPAN OKINAWA SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 78,000 78,000
FACILITY.
Army JAPAN SAGAMI VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP... 18,000 18,000
Army KANSAS FORT RILEY, KANSAS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE 12,200 12,200
COMPLEX.
Army KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY BATTALION HEADQUARTERS 55,000 55,000
COMPLEX.
Army KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY LIVE FIRE EXERCISE 3,800 3,800
SHOOTHOUSE.
Army KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE 23,000 23,000
COMPLEX.
Army KENTUCKY FORT KNOX AUTOMATED INFANTRY SQUAD 6,000 6,000
BATTLE COURSE.
Army KOREA CAMP HUMPHREYS BATTALION HEADQUARTERS 45,000 45,000
COMPLEX.
Army KWAJALEIN ATOLL KWAJALEIN ATOLL PIER....................... 0 0
Army MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD BATTALION COMPLEX 26,000 26,000
FACILITIES.
Army MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD TRAINEE BARRACKS COMPLEX 3, 58,000 58,000
PH 2.
Army MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP... 39,000 39,000
Army NEW JERSEY JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- FLIGHT EQUIPMENT COMPLEX... 47,000 47,000
LAKEHURST
Army NEW JERSEY PICATINNY ARSENAL BALLISTIC EVALUATION CENTER 10,200 10,200
Army NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR 95,000 95,000
Army NEW YORK U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY CADET BARRACKS............. 192,000 192,000
Army NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG AERIAL GUNNERY RANGE....... 42,000 42,000
Army NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG INFRASTRUCTURE............. 30,000 30,000
Army NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE 26,000 26,000
COMPLEX.
Army OKLAHOMA FORT SILL MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE. 4,900 4,900
Army SOUTH CAROLINA FORT JACKSON TRAINEE BARRACKS COMPLEX 2, 24,000 24,000
PH 2.
Army TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI AIRCRAFT COMPONENT 13,200 13,200
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
Army TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI AIRCRAFT PAINT SHOP........ 24,000 24,000
Army TEXAS FORT BLISS MULTIPURPOSE MACHINE GUN 7,200 7,200
RANGE.
Army TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE. 4,200 4,200
Army TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS TRAINING AIDS CENTER....... 25,000 25,000
Army TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE 22,000 22,000
COMPLEX.
Army TEXAS JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO BARRACKS................... 21,000 21,000
Army VIRGINIA ARLINGTON CEMETERY EXPANSION 84,000 84,000
MILLENNIUM SITE.
Army VIRGINIA FORT BELVOIR SECURE ADMIN/OPERATIONS 94,000 94,000
FACILITY.
Army VIRGINIA FORT LEE ADV INDIVIDUAL TRAINING 81,000 81,000
BARRACKS CPLX, PH2.
Army WASHINGTON JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD BATTALION COMPLEX.......... 73,000 73,000
Army WASHINGTON JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 91,000 91,000
Army WASHINGTON YAKIMA CONVOY LIVE FIRE RANGE..... 5,100 5,100
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE HOST NATION SUPPORT FY 13.. 34,000 34,000
LOCATIONS
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MINOR CONSTRUCTION FY 13... 25,000 25,000
LOCATIONS
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN FY13... 65,173 65,173
LOCATIONS
Total Military Construction, Army 1,923,323 0 1,923,323
........................... ...........................
Navy ARIZONA YUMA COMBAT AIRCRAFT LOADING 15,985 15,985
APRON.
Navy ARIZONA YUMA SECURITY OPERATIONS COMPLEX 13,300 13,300
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA COMBINED DINING FACILITY... 9,819 -9,819 0
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA TRANSIENT QUARTERS......... 41,529 -41,529 0
Navy CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA COMM. INFORMATION SYSTEMS 78,897 78,897
OPS COMPLEX.
Navy CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA MV22 AVIATION SIMULATOR 4,139 4,139
BUILDING.
Navy CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA SAN JACINTO ROAD EXTENSION. 5,074 5,074
Navy CALIFORNIA CORONADO BACHELOR QUARTERS.......... 76,063 76,063
Navy CALIFORNIA CORONADO H-60S SIMULATOR TRAINING 2,478 2,478
FACILITY.
Navy CALIFORNIA LEMOORE BAMS MAINTENANCE TRAINING 14,843 -14,843 0
FACILITY.
Navy CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR HANGAR 5 RENOVATIONS & 27,897 27,897
ADDITION.
Navy CALIFORNIA POINT MUGU BAMS MAINTENANCE TRAINING 0 12,790 12,790
FACILITY.
Navy CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO ENTRY CONTROL POINT (GATE 11,752 11,752
FIVE).
Navy CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO LCS TRAINING FACILITY...... 59,436 59,436
Navy CALIFORNIA SEAL BEACH STRATEGIC SYSTEMS WEAPONS 30,594 30,594
EVAL. TEST LAB.
Navy CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, LAND EXPANSION PHASE 2..... 47,270 47,270
CALIFORNIA
Navy DIEGO GARCIA DIEGO GARCIA COMMUNICATIONS 1,691 1,691
INFRASTRUCTURE.
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI CONTAINERIZED LIVING AND 7,510 -7,510 0
WORK UNITS.
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI FITNESS CENTER............. 26,960 -26,960 0
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI GALLEY ADDITION AND 22,220 -22,220 0
WAREHOUSE.
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI JOINT HQ/JOINT OPERATIONS 42,730 -42,730 0
CENTER FACILITY.
Navy FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE BAMS MISSION CONTROL 21,980 21,980
COMPLEX.
Navy GREECE SOUDA BAY AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON 20,493 20,493
EXPANSION.
Navy GREECE SOUDA BAY INTERMODAL ACCESS ROAD..... 4,630 4,630
Navy GUAM JOINT REGION MARIANAS NORTH RAMP PARKING 25,904 25,904
(ANDERSEN AFB)--INC 2.
Navy HAWAII KANEOHE BAY AIRCRAFT STAGING AREA...... 14,680 14,680
Navy HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV-22 HANGAR AND 82,630 82,630
INFRASTRUCTURE.
Navy JAPAN IWAKUNI MAINTENANCE HANGAR 5,722 5,722
IMPROVEMENTS.
Navy JAPAN IWAKUNI VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND 7,416 7,416
LANDING PAD NORTH.
Navy JAPAN OKINAWA BACHELOR QUARTERS.......... 8,206 8,206
Navy MISSISSIPPI MERIDIAN DINING FACILITY............ 10,926 10,926
Navy NEW JERSEY EARLE COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING 33,498 33,498
BUILDING ADDITION.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH BASE ACCESS AND ROAD--PHASE 40,904 40,904
CAROLINA 3.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH STAFF NCO ACADEMY 28,986 28,986
CAROLINA FACILITIES.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE CORPS ARMORY..................... 11,581 11,581
AIR STATION
Navy NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE CORPS MARINE AIR SUPPORT SQUADRON 34,310 34,310
AIR STATION COMPOUND.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA NEW RIVER PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 8,525 8,525
CENTER.
Navy ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA AEGIS ASHORE MISSILE 45,205 45,205
DEFENSE COMPLEX.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR 42,010 42,010
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT AIRFIELD SECURITY UPGRADES. 13,675 13,675
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 9,465 9,465
SHOP.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT RECYCLING/HAZARDOUS WASTE 3,743 3,743
FACILITY.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT SIMULATED LHD FLIGHT DECK.. 12,887 12,887
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA PARRIS ISLAND FRONT GATE ATFP 10,135 10,135
IMPROVEMENTS.
Navy SPAIN ROTA GENERAL PURPOSE WAREHOUSE.. 3,378 3,378
Navy SPAIN ROTA HIGH EXPLOSIVE MAGAZINE.... 13,837 13,837
Navy VIRGINIA DAHLGREN CRUISER/DESTROYER UPGRADE 16,494 16,494
TRAINING FACILITY.
Navy VIRGINIA DAHLGREN PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER.... 11,734 11,734
Navy VIRGINIA OCEANA NAVAL AIR STATION A SCHOOL BARRACKS.......... 39,086 39,086
Navy VIRGINIA PORTSMOUTH DRYDOCK 8 ELECTRICAL 32,706 32,706
DISTRIBUTION UPGRADE.
Navy VIRGINIA QUANTICO INFRASTRUTURE--WIDEN 14,826 14,826
RUSSELL ROAD.
Navy VIRGINIA QUANTICO THE BASIC SCHOOL STUDENT 31,012 31,012
QUARTERS--PHASE 7.
Navy VIRGINIA QUANTICO WEAPONS TRAINING BATTALION 12,876 12,876
MESS HALL.
Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN ARMORY..................... 4,259 4,259
Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS. 18,422 18,422
Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN MOTOR TRANSPORTATION 6,188 6,188
FACILITY.
Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN REGIMENTAL HEADQUARTERS.... 11,015 11,015
Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN SUPPLY WAREHOUSE FACILITY.. 8,939 8,939
Navy WASHINGTON KITSAP EXPLOSIVES HANDLING WHARF 280,041 280,041
#2 (INC).
Navy WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND EA-18G FLIGHT SIMULATOR 6,272 6,272
FACILITY.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MCON DESIGN FUNDS.......... 102,619 102,619
LOCATIONS
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 16,535 16,535
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS BAMS OPERATIONAL FACILITIES 34,048 34,048
Total Military Construction, Navy 1,701,985 -152,821 1,549,164
........................... ...........................
AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C-130J FLIGHT SIMULATOR 4,178 4,178
ADDITION.
AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C-130J FUEL SYSTEMS 26,000 26,000
MAINTENANCE HANGAR.
AF FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB F-22 ADAL HANGAR FOR LOW 14,750 14,750
OBSERVABLE/COMPOSITE.
AF GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA AIR SUPPORT OPERATIONS 7,250 7,250
CENTER (ASOC).
AF GEORGIA MOODY AFB HC-130J SIMULATOR FACILITY. 8,500 8,500
AF GREENLAND THULE AB CONSOLIDATED ENGINEER SHOP 0 0
AND SUPPLY FACILITY.
AF GREENLAND THULE AB DORMITORY (48 PN).......... 24,500 24,500
AF GUAM ANDERSEN AFB FUEL SYSTEMS HANGAR........ 0 0
AF ITALY AVIANO AB F-16 MISSION TRAINING 9,400 9,400
CENTER.
AF NEBRASKA OFFUTT AFB US STRATCOM REPLACEMENT 161,000 161,000
FACILITY, INCR 2.
AF NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB MQ-9 MAINTENANCE HANGAR.... 25,000 25,000
AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B-52 ADD/ALTER MUNITIONS 4,600 4,600
AGE FACILITY.
AF TEXAS JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO DORMITORY (144 RM)......... 18,000 18,000
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 ADAL BUILDING 118 FOR 4,000 4,000
FLIGHT SIMULATOR.
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 ADAL HANGAR 45W/AMU... 7,250 7,250
AF UTAH HILL AFB F-35 MODULAR STORAGE 2,280 2,280
MAGAZINES.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 18,635 18,635
LOCATIONS
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE SANITARY SEWER LIFT/PUMP 2,000 2,000
LOCATIONS STATION.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT HANGARS. 15,032 15,032
LOCATIONS
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE TRANSIENT CONTINGENCY 17,625 17,625
LOCATIONS DORMITORY--100 RM.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR 18,200 18,200
CONSTRUCTION.
Total Military Construction, Air Force 388,200 0 388,200
........................... ...........................
Def-Wide ARIZONA YUMA TRUCK UNLOAD FACILITY...... 1,300 1,300
Def-Wide BELGIUM BRUSSELS NATO HEADQUARTERS FACILITY. 26,969 26,969
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF CLOSE QUARTERS COMBAT/ 13,969 13,969
DYNAMIC SHOOT FAC.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF INDOOR DYNAMIC SHOOTING 31,170 31,170
FACILITY.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF MOBILE COMM DETACHMENT 10,120 10,120
SUPPORT FACILITY.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA DEF FUEL SUPPORT POINT--SAN REPLACE FUEL PIER.......... 91,563 91,563
DIEGO
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE REPLACE FUEL STORAGE....... 27,500 27,500
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, MEDICAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT. 27,400 27,400
CALIFORNIA
Def-Wide COLORADO BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE DENVER POWER HOUSE......... 30,000 30,000
Def-Wide COLORADO FORT CARSON, COLORADO SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS 56,673 56,673
COMPLEX.
Def-Wide COLORADO PIKES PEAK HIGH ALTITUDE MEDICAL 3,600 3,600
RESEARCH LAB.
Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION SOF PARACHUTE TRAINING 6,477 6,477
FACILITY.
Def-Wide DELAWARE DOVER AFB REPLACE TRUCK OFF-LOAD 2,000 2,000
FACILITY.
Def-Wide FLORIDA EGLIN AFB SOF AVFID OPS AND 41,695 41,695
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES.
Def-Wide FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD CONSTRUCT FUEL STORAGE 16,000 16,000
FACILITY.
Def-Wide FLORIDA MACDILL AFB SOF JOINT SPECIAL OPS 34,409 34,409
UNIVERSITY FAC (JSOU).
Def-Wide GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS MEDICAL CENTER REPLACEMENT 127,000 127,000
INCR 2.
Def-Wide GERMANY STUTTGART-PATCH BARRACKS DISA EUROPE FACILITY 2,413 2,413
UPGRADES.
Def-Wide GERMANY VOGELWEH REPLACE VOGELWEH ELEMENTARY 61,415 61,415
SCHOOL.
Def-Wide GERMANY WEISBADEN WEISBADEN HIGH SCHOOL 52,178 52,178
ADDITION.
Def-Wide GUAM ANDERSEN AFB UPGRADE FUEL PIPELINE...... 67,500 67,500
Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA GUANTANAMO BAY REPLACE FUEL PIER.......... 37,600 37,600
Def-Wide GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA GUANTANAMO BAY REPLACE TRUCK LOAD FACILITY 2,600 2,600
Def-Wide HAWAII JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR- SOF SDVT-1 WATERFRONT 24,289 24,289
HICKAM OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Def-Wide ILLINOIS GREAT LAKES DRUG LABORATORY REPLACEMENT 28,700 28,700
Def-Wide ILLINOIS SCOTT AFB DISA FACILITY UPGRADES..... 84,111 84,111
Def-Wide ILLINOIS SCOTT AFB MEDICAL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE 2,600 2,600
Def-Wide INDIANA GRISSOM ARB REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SYSTEM 26,800 26,800
Def-Wide JAPAN CAMP ZAMA RENOVATE ZAMA HIGH SCHOOL.. 13,273 13,273
Def-Wide JAPAN KADENA AB REPLACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.. 71,772 71,772
Def-Wide JAPAN KADENA AB REPLACE STEARLEY HEIGHTS 71,773 71,773
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
Def-Wide JAPAN SASEBO REPLACE SASEBO ELEMENTARY 35,733 35,733
SCHOOL.
Def-Wide JAPAN ZUKERAN REPLACE ZUKERAN ELEMENTARY 79,036 79,036
SCHOOL.
Def-Wide KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY REPLACE BARKLEY ELEMENTARY 41,767 41,767
SCHOOL.
Def-Wide KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF GROUND SUPPORT 26,313 26,313
BATTALION.
Def-Wide KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF LANDGRAF HANGAR 3,559 3,559
EXTENSION.
Def-Wide KOREA KUNSAN AIR BASE MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC 13,000 13,000
ADDITION.
Def-Wide KOREA OSAN AFB HOSPITAL ADDITION/ 34,600 34,600
ALTERATION.
Def-Wide KOREA OSAN AFB REPLACE OSAN ELEMENTARY 42,692 42,692
SCHOOL.
Def-Wide LOUISIANA BARKSDALE AFB UPGRADE PUMPHOUSE.......... 11,700 11,700
Def-Wide MARYLAND ANNAPOLIS HEALTH CLINIC REPLACEMENT.. 66,500 66,500
Def-Wide MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL BASE INSTALLATION ACCESS./ 7,000 7,000
APPEARANCE PLAN.
Def-Wide MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND 35,600 35,600
COOLING TOWERS.
Def-Wide MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL TEMPORARY MEDICAL 26,600 26,600
FACILITIES.
Def-Wide MARYLAND FORT DETRICK USAMRIID STAGE I, INCR 7... 19,000 19,000
Def-Wide MARYLAND FORT MEADE HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 300,521 300,521
CENTER INC 2.
Def-Wide MARYLAND FORT MEADE NSAW RECAPITALIZE BUILDING 25,000 25,000
#1/SITE M INC 1.
Def-Wide MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD DENTAL CLINIC.............. 18,100 18,100
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC 71,023 71,023
REPALCEMENT.
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB SOF AC-130J COMBAT PARKING 22,062 22,062
APRON.
Def-Wide NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK IDT COMPLEX................ 25,900 25,900
Def-Wide NEW YORK FORT DRUM, NEW YORK SOLDIER SPECIALTY CARE 17,300 17,300
CLINIC.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH MEDICAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT. 21,200 21,200
CAROLINA
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH SOF MARINE BATTALION 53,399 53,399
CAROLINA COMPANY/TEAM FACILITIES.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH SOF SURVIVAL EVASION 5,465 5,465
CAROLINA RESIST. ESCAPE TNG FAC.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS 40,481 40,481
FACILITY.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF CIVIL AFFAIRS BATTALION 31,373 31,373
COMPLEX.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF SUPPORT ADDITION....... 3,875 3,875
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF SUSTAINMENT BRIGADE 24,693 24,693
COMPLEX.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB MEDICAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT. 53,600 53,600
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB REPLACE PIPELINE........... 1,850 1,850
Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA DEF DISTRIBUTION DEPOT NEW REPLACE COMMUNICATIONS 6,800 6,800
CUMBERLAND BUILDING.
Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA DEF DISTRIBUTION DEPOT NEW REPLACE RESERVOIR.......... 4,300 4,300
CUMBERLAND
Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA DEF DISTRIBUTION DEPOT NEW REPLACE SEWAGE TREATMENT 6,300 6,300
CUMBERLAND PLANT.
Def-Wide ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA AEGIS ASHORE MISSILE 157,900 -75,000 82,900
DEFENSE SYSTEM COMPLEX.
Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA SHAW AFB MEDICAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT. 57,200 57,200
Def-Wide TEXAS FORT BLISS HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT INCR 4 207,400 207,400
Def-Wide TEXAS JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 80,700 80,700
PHASE 3 INCR.
Def-Wide TEXAS RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT DFAS FACILITY.............. 16,715 16,715
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION MHS UTILITIES AND ROADS.... 3,795 3,795
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION REPLACE MENWITH HILL 46,488 46,488
ELEMENTARY/HIGH SCHOOL.
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM RAF FELTWELL FELTWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 30,811 30,811
ADDITION.
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF CV-22 SIMULATOR 6,490 6,490
FACILITY.
Def-Wide UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS IC CNCI DATA CENTER 1 INC 4 191,414 191,414
Def-Wide VIRGINIA DAM NECK SOF MAGAZINES.............. 0 0
Def-Wide VIRGINIA JOINT EXPEDITIONARY BASE SOF COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT 11,132 11,132
LITTLE CREEK--STORY FACILITY--EAST.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA NORFOLK VETERINARY FACILITY 8,500 8,500
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS 46,553 46,553
FACILITY.
Def-Wide WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF MILITARY WORKING DOG 3,967 3,967
KENNEL.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION... 10,000 -10,000 0
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE ENERGY CONSERVATION 150,000 150,000
LOCATIONS INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE EXERCISE RELATED MINOR 6,440 6,440
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MINOR CONSTRUCTION......... 5,000 5,000
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING & DESIGN.......... 5,000 5,000
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 7,928 7,928
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 105,700 105,700
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 27,620 27,620
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 8,300 8,300
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 47,978 47,978
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 105,569 105,569
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 2,919 2,919
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 4,548 4,548
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE SOF OPERATIONS AND SKILLS 0 0
LOCATIONS TRAINING COMPLEX.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONST.... 10,000 10,000
LOCATIONS
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 7,254 7,254
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 4,091 4,091
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 3,000 3,000
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR MILCON... 3,000 3,000
LOCATIONS
Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide 3,654,623 -85,000 3,569,623
........................... ...........................
Chem Demil COLORADO PUEBLO DEPOT AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION 36,000 36,000
FACILITY, PH XIV.
Chem Demil KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION 115,000 115,000
PH XIII.
Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense 151,000 0 151,000
........................... ...........................
NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT 254,163 254,163
PROGRAM PROGRAM.
Total NATO Security Investment Program 254,163 0 254,163
........................... ...........................
Army NG ALABAMA FORT MC CLELLAN LIVE FIRE SHOOT HOUSE...... 5,400 5,400
Army NG ARKANSAS SEARCY FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP..... 6,800 6,800
Army NG CALIFORNIA FORT IRWIN MANEUVER AREA TRAINING & 25,000 25,000
EQUIPMENT SITE PH3.
Army NG CONNECTICUT CAMP HARTELL COMBINED SUPPORT 32,000 32,000
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
Army NG DELAWARE BETHANY BEACH REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE 5,500 5,500
PH1.
Army NG FLORIDA CAMP BLANDING COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE 9,000 9,000
TRAINING FAC.
Army NG FLORIDA MIRAMAR READINESS CENTER........... 20,000 20,000
Army NG GUAM BARRIGADA JFHQ PH4................... 8,500 8,500
Army NG HAWAII KAPOLEI ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT 28,000 28,000
FACILITY PH1.
Army NG IDAHO ORCHARD TRAINIG AREA ORTC(BARRACKS)PH2.......... 40,000 40,000
Army NG INDIANA SOUTH BEND ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER 21,000 21,000
ADD/ALT.
Army NG INDIANA TERRE HAUTE FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP..... 9,000 9,000
Army NG IOWA CAMP DODGE URBAN ASSAULT COURSE....... 3,000 3,000
Army NG KANSAS TOPEKA TAXIWAY, RAMP & HANGAR 9,500 9,500
ALTERATIONS.
Army NG KENTUCKY FRANKFORT ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT 32,000 32,000
FACILITY.
Army NG MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, 0 0
TREATMENT, AND RECHARGE
SYSTEM.
Army NG MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS UNIT TRAINING EQUIPMENT 22,000 22,000
SITE.
Army NG MICHIGAN CAMP GRAYLING OPERATIONAL READINESS 0 0
TRAINING COMPLEX (ORTC)
BARRACKS.
Army NG MINNESOTA CAMP RIPLEY SCOUT RECONNAISANCE RANGE.. 17,000 17,000
Army NG MINNESOTA ST PAUL READINESS CENTER........... 17,000 17,000
Army NG MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE 18,000 18,000
Army NG MISSOURI KANSAS CITY READINESS CENTER ADD/ALT... 1,900 1,900
Army NG MISSOURI MONETT READINESS CENTER ADD/ALT... 820 820
Army NG MISSOURI PERRYVILLE READINESS CENTER ADD/ALT... 700 700
Army NG MONTANA MILES CITY READINESS CENTER........... 11,000 11,000
Army NG NEW JERSEY SEA GIRT REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE 34,000 34,000
Army NG NEW YORK STORMVILLE COMBINED SUPPORT MAINT SHOP 24,000 24,000
PH1.
Army NG OHIO CHILLICOTHE FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP ADD/ 3,100 3,100
ALT.
Army NG OHIO DELAWARE READINESS CENTER........... 12,000 12,000
Army NG OKLAHOMA CAMP GRUBER OPERATIONS READINESS 25,000 25,000
TRAINING COMPLEX.
Army NG PUERTO RICO CAMP SANTIAGO READINESS CENTER........... 3,800 3,800
Army NG PUERTO RICO CEIBA REFILL STATION BUILDING.... 2,200 2,200
Army NG PUERTO RICO GUAYNABO READINESS CENTER (JFHQ).... 15,000 15,000
Army NG PUERTO RICO GURABO READINESS CENTER........... 14,700 14,700
Army NG UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS BEQ FACILITY (REGIONAL 15,000 15,000
TRAINING INSTITUTE).
Army NG UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE 21,000 21,000
PH2.
Army NG VERMONT NORTH HYDE PARK FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP..... 0 0
Army NG WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS READINESS CENTER........... 35,000 35,000
Army NG WEST VIRGINIA LOGAN READINESS CENTER........... 14,200 14,200
Army NG WISCONSIN WAUSAU FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP..... 10,000 10,000
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 26,622 26,622
LOCATIONS
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 15,057 15,057
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Total Military Construction, Army National Guard 613,799 0 613,799
........................... ...........................
Army Res CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT ACCESS CONTROL POINT....... 0 0
Army Res CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT ORTC....................... 64,000 64,000
Army Res CALIFORNIA FORT HUNTER LIGGETT UPH BARRACKS............... 4,300 4,300
Army Res CALIFORNIA TUSTIN ARMY RESERVE CENTER........ 27,000 27,000
Army Res ILLINOIS FORT SHERIDAN ARMY RESERVE CENTER........ 28,000 28,000
Army Res MARYLAND ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND ARMY RESERVE CENTER........ 21,000 21,000
Army Res MARYLAND BALTIMORE ADD/ALT ARMY RESERVE CENTER 10,000 10,000
Army Res MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES AUTOMATIC RECORD FIRE RANGE 4,800 4,800
TRAINING AREA
Army Res MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES COMBAT PISTOL/MP FIREARMS 3,700 3,700
TRAINING AREA QUALIFICATION.
Army Res NEVADA LAS VEGAS ARMY RESERVE CENTER/AMSA... 21,000 21,000
Army Res NEW JERSEY JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX- AUTOMATED INFANTRY SQUAD 7,400 7,400
LAKEHURST BATTLE COURSE.
Army Res PENNSYLVANIA CONNEAUT LAKE DEFENSE ACCESS ROAD........ 0 0
Army Res WASHINGTON JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD ARMY RESERVE CENTER........ 40,000 40,000
Army Res WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY CENTRAL ISSUE FACILITY..... 12,200 12,200
Army Res WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY DINING FACILITY............ 8,600 8,600
Army Res WISCONSIN FORT MCCOY ECS TACTICAL EQUIP. MAINT. 27,000 27,000
FACILTY (TEMF).
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 15,951 15,951
LOCATIONS
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED MINOR 10,895 10,895
LOCATIONS CONSTRUCTION.
Total Military Construction, Army Reserve 305,846 0 305,846
........................... ...........................
N/MC Res ARIZONA YUMA RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY-- 5,379 5,379
YUMA AZ.
N/MC Res IOWA FORT DES MOINES JOINT RESERVE CENTER--DES 19,162 19,162
MOINES IA.
N/MC Res LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS TRANSIENT QUARTERS......... 7,187 7,187
N/MC Res NEW YORK BROOKLYN VEHICLE MAINT. FAC.-- 4,430 4,430
BROOKLYN NY.
N/MC Res TEXAS FORT WORTH COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 11,256 11,256
INSPECTION SITE.
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 2,118 2,118
LOCATIONS
Total Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve 49,532 0 49,532
........................... ...........................
Air NG CALIFORNIA FRESNO YOSEMITE IAP ANG F-15 CONVERSION............ 11,000 11,000
Air NG HAWAII JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR- TFI--F-22 COMBAT APRON 6,500 6,500
HICKAM ADDITION.
Air NG NEW MEXICO KIRTLAND AFB ALTER TARGET INTELLIGENCE 8,500 8,500
FACILITY.
Air NG TENNESSEE MCGHEE-TYSON AIRPORT DORMITORY CLASSROOM 0 0
FACILITY.
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 4,000 4,000
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR 5,900 5,900
CONSTRUCTION.
Air NG WYOMING CHEYENNE MAP C-130 FLIGHT SIMULATOR 6,486 6,486
TRAINING FACILITY.
Total Military Construction, Air National Guard 42,386 0 42,386
........................... ...........................
AF Res CALIFORNIA MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE JOINT REGIONAL DEPLOYMENT 0 0
PROCESSING CENTER.
AF Res NEW YORK NIAGARA FALLS IAP FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY.. 6,100 6,100
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 2,879 2,879
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR 2,000 2,000
CONSTRUTION.
Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve 10,979 0 10,979
........................... ...........................
FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FAMILY HOUSING P&D......... 4,641 4,641
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Construction, Army 4,641 0 4,641
........................... ...........................
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT........ 31,785 31,785
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LEASING.................... 203,533 203,533
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MAINTENANCE OF REAL 109,534 109,534
LOCATIONS PROPERTY.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT......... 56,970 56,970
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT...... 620 620
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS 26,010 26,010
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE SERVICES ACCOUNT........... 13,487 13,487
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UTILITIES ACCOUNT.......... 88,112 88,112
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army 530,051 0 530,051
........................... ...........................
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IMPROVEMENTS............... 79,571 79,571
LOCATIONS
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PLANNING AND DESIGN........ 4,253 4,253
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force 83,824 0 83,824
........................... ...........................
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT........ 37,878 37,878
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE HOUSING PRIVATIZATION...... 46,127 46,127
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LEASING.................... 62,730 62,730
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MAINTENANCE (RPMA RPMC).... 201,937 201,937
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT......... 55,002 55,002
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT...... 1,943 1,943
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE SERVICES ACCOUNT........... 16,550 16,550
LOCATIONS
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UTILITIES ACCOUNT.......... 75,662 75,662
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Air Force 497,829 0 497,829
........................... ...........................
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DESIGN..................... 4,527 4,527
LOCATIONS
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IMPROVEMENTS............... 97,655 97,655
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps 102,182 0 102,182
........................... ...........................
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT........ 17,697 17,697
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LEASING.................... 83,774 83,774
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MAINTENANCE OF REAL 85,254 85,254
LOCATIONS PROPERTY.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT......... 62,741 62,741
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT...... 491 491
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS 27,798 27,798
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE SERVICES ACCOUNT........... 19,615 19,615
LOCATIONS
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UTILITIES ACCOUNT.......... 80,860 80,860
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps 378,230 0 378,230
........................... ...........................
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT........ 4,660 4,660
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT........ 66 66
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT........ 20 20
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LEASING.................... 35,333 35,333
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LEASING.................... 10,822 10,822
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MAINTENANCE OF REAL 567 567
LOCATIONS PROPERTY.
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MAINTENANCE OF REAL 73 73
LOCATIONS PROPERTY.
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT......... 371 371
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE SERVICES ACCOUNT........... 31 31
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UTILITIES ACCOUNT.......... 283 283
LOCATIONS
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE UTILITIES ACCOUNT.......... 12 12
LOCATIONS
Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide 52,238 0 52,238
........................... ...........................
FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT 1,786 1,786
LOCATIONS FUND.
Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,786 0 1,786
........................... ...........................
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE COMM ADD 3: GALENA FOL, AK. 1,337 1,337
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-100: PLANING, DESIGN 5,038 5,038
LOCATIONS AND MANAGEMENT.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-101: VARIOUS LOCATIONS. 4,176 4,176
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-138: NAS BRUNSWICK, ME. 4,897 4,897
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-157: MCSA KANSAS CITY, 39 39
LOCATIONS MO.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-168: NS NEWPORT, RI.... 1,742 1,742
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-172: NWS SEAL BEACH, 2,129 2,129
LOCATIONS CONCORD, CA.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE DON-84: JRB WILLOW GROVE & 189 189
LOCATIONS CAMBRIA REG AP.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-106: KANSAS ARMY 7,280 7,280
LOCATIONS AMMUNITION PLANT, KS.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-110: MISSISSIPPI ARMY 160 160
LOCATIONS AMMO PLANT, MS.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-112: RIVER BANK ARMY 22,431 22,431
LOCATIONS AMMO PLANT, CA.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-119: NEWPORT CHEMICAL 197 197
LOCATIONS DEPOT, IN.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE IND-122: LONE STAR ARMY 11,379 11,379
LOCATIONS AMMO PLANT, TX.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MED-2: WALTER REED NMMC, 7,787 7,787
LOCATIONS BETHESDA, MD.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE MED-57: BROOKS CITY BASE, 326 326
LOCATIONS TX.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS 20,453 20,453
LOCATIONS LOCATIONS.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS 605 605
LOCATIONS LOCATIONS.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-113: FORT MONROE, VA... 12,184 12,184
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-121: FORT GILLEM, GA... 4,976 4,976
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-167: USAR COMMAND AND 175 175
LOCATIONS CONTROL--NE.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-212: USAR CMD & CNTRL-- 222 222
LOCATIONS NEW ENGLAND.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-222: FORT MCPHERSON, GA 6,772 6,772
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-223: FORT MONMOUTH, NJ. 9,989 9,989
LOCATIONS
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-236: RC TRANSFORMATION 557 557
LOCATIONS IN CT.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-242: RC TRANSFORMATION 172 172
LOCATIONS IN NY.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-253: RC TRANSFORMATION 100 100
LOCATIONS IN PA.
BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE USA-36: RED RIVER ARMY 1,385 1,385
LOCATIONS DEPOT.
Total Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 126,697 0 126,697
........................... ...........................
BRAC IV WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE, BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE. 122,552 122,552
AIR FORCE
BRAC IV WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE, BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE. 79,893 79,893
ARMY
BRAC IV WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE, BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE. 146,951 146,951
NAVY
Total Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 349,396 0 349,396
........................... ...........................
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE BRAC 2005.................. 0 -126,697 -126,697
LOCATIONS
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION... 0 -20,000 -20,000
LOCATIONS
Total Prior Year Savings 0 -146,697 -146,697
........................... ...........................
Total Military Construction 11,222,710 -384,518 10,838,192
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA COMBINED DINING FACILITY... 0 9,819 9,819
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW ASIA TRANSIENT QUARTERS......... 0 41,529 41,529
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI CONTAINERIZED LIVING AND 0 7,510 7,510
WORK UNITS.
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI FITNESS CENTER............. 0 26,960 26,960
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI GALLEY ADDITION AND 0 22,220 22,220
WAREHOUSE.
Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI JOINT HQ/JOINT OPERATIONS 0 42,730 42,730
CENTER FACILITY.
Total Military Construction, Navy 0 150,768 150,768
........................... ...........................
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE 112-10 AND TITLE IV OF 0 -150,768 -150,768
LOCATIONS DIVISION H P.L. 112-74.
Total Prior Year Savings 0 -150,768 -150,768
........................... ...........................
Total Military Construction 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
Program FY 2013 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Electricity delivery and energy reliability......... 6,000 0 6,000
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 7,577,341 323,638 7,900,979
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 2,458,631 27,000 2,485,631
Naval reactors.................................... 1,088,635 99,000 1,187,635
Office of the administrator....................... 411,279 -48,000 363,279
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 11,535,886 401,638 11,937,524
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,472,001 10,000 5,482,001
Other defense activities.......................... 735,702 -50,000 685,702
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,207,703 -40,000 6,167,703
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 17,743,589 361,638 18,105,227
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 17,749,589 361,638 18,111,227
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability
Infrastructure security & energy restoration.......... 6,000 6,000
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 369,000 66,000 435,000
W76 Life extension program.......................... 174,931 81,000 255,931
Total, Life extension programs........................ 543,931 147,000 690,931
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 72,364 72,364
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 65,445 65,445
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 139,207 12,000 151,207
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 46,540 46,540
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 57,947 57,947
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 85,689 85,689
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 123,217 5,000 128,217
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 590,409 17,000 607,409
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 51,265 51,265
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 365,405 6,000 371,405
Research and development support.................... 28,103 4,000 32,103
R&D certification and safety........................ 191,632 27,000 218,632
Management, technology, and production.............. 175,844 9,000 184,844
Plutonium sustainment............................... 141,685 9,000 150,685
Total, Stockpile services............................. 902,669 55,000 957,669
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 2,088,274 219,000 2,307,274
Campaigns:
Science campaign
Advanced certification.............................. 44,104 29,500 73,604
Primary assessment technologies..................... 94,000 7,000 101,000
Dynamic materials properties........................ 97,000 9,000 106,000
Advanced radiography................................ 30,000 30,000
Secondary assessment technologies................... 85,000 85,000
Total, Science campaign............................... 350,104 45,500 395,604
Engineering campaign
Enhanced surety..................................... 46,421 8,500 54,921
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 18,983 18,983
Nuclear survivability............................... 21,788 21,788
Enhanced surveillance............................... 63,379 8,000 71,379
Total, Engineering campaign........................... 150,571 16,500 167,071
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
campaign
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 81,942 81,942
Ignition............................................ 84,172 -30,000 54,172
Support of other stockpile programs................. 14,817 20,000 34,817
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 6,044 6,044
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 8,334 8,334
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 264,691 264,691
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield 460,000 -10,000 450,000
campaign.............................................
Advanced simulation and computing campaign............ 600,000 -30,000 570,000
Readiness Campaign
Nonnuclear readiness................................ 64,681 64,681
Tritium readiness................................... 65,414 65,414
Total, Readiness campaign............................. 130,095 0 130,095
Total, Campaigns........................................ 1,690,770 22,000 1,712,770
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant................................. 163,602 163,602
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory............ 89,048 89,048
Los Alamos National Laboratory.................... 335,978 335,978
Nevada National Security Site..................... 115,697 115,697
Pantex............................................ 172,020 172,020
Sandia National Laboratory........................ 167,384 167,384
Savannah River Site............................... 120,577 120,577
Y-12 National security complex.................... 255,097 255,097
Total, Operations of facilities....................... 1,419,403 0 1,419,403
Science, technology and engineering capability support 166,945 166,945
Nuclear operations capability support................. 203,346 203,346
Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities.... 1,789,694 0 1,789,694
Construction:
13-D-301 Electrical infrastructure upgrades, LANL/ 23,000 23,000
LLNL...............................................
12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL................. 24,204 24,204
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project, LANL........... 8,889 8,889
10-D-501 Nuclear facilities risk reduction Y-12 17,909 17,909
National security complex, Oakridge, TN............
09-D-404 Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia 11,332 11,332
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.............
08-D-802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex 24,800 24,800
Plant, Amarillo, TX................................
06-D-141 PED/Construction, UPF Y-12 , Oak Ridge, TN. 340,000 340,000
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility 0 100,000 100,000
replacement project, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.........................
Total, Construction................................... 450,134 100,000 550,134
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities....... 2,239,828 100,000 2,339,828
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 114,965 114,965
Program direction..................................... 104,396 104,396
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 219,361 0 219,361
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response.............. 247,552 247,552
Site stewardship
Operations and maintenance............................ 90,001 -17,362 72,639
Total, Site stewardship................................. 90,001 -17,362 72,639
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 643,285 643,285
NNSA CIO activities..................................... 155,022 155,022
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 185,000 185,000
National security applications.......................... 18,248 18,248
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 7,577,341 323,638 7,900,979
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 7,577,341 323,638 7,900,979
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nonproliferation and verification R&D
Operations and maintenance............................ 548,186 548,186
Nonproliferation and international security............. 150,119 150,119
International nuclear materials protection
and cooperation......................................... 311,000 311,000
Fissile materials disposition
U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition
Operations and maintenance
U.S. plutonium disposition........................ 498,979 498,979
U.S. uranium disposition.......................... 29,736 29,736
Total, Operations and maintenance................... 528,715 0 528,715
Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, 388,802 388,802
Savannah River, SC...............................
Total, Construction................................. 388,802 0 388,802
Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition..... 917,517 0 917,517
Russian surplus fissile materials disposition......... 3,788 3,788
Total, Fissile materials disposition.................... 921,305 0 921,305
Global threat reduction initiative...................... 466,021 27,000 493,021
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 62,000 62,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 2,458,631 27,000 2,485,631
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors development.............................. 418,072 418,072
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 89,700 97,000 186,700
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 121,100 121,100
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 366,961 366,961
Construction:
13-D-905 Remote-handled low-level waste facility, INL. 8,890 8,890
13-D-904 KS Radiological work and storage building, 2,000 2,000
KSO..................................................
13-D-903, KS Prototype Staff Building, KSO............ 14,000 14,000
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..................... 19,000 19,000
08-D-190 Expended Core Facility M-290 recovering 5,700 5,700
discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID........
Total, Construction..................................... 49,590 0 49,590
Program direction....................................... 43,212 2,000 45,212
Subtotal, Naval Reactors.................................. 1,088,635 99,000 1,187,635
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,088,635 99,000 1,187,635
Office Of The Administrator
Office of the administrator............................. 411,279 -48,000 363,279
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 411,279 -48,000 363,279
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 1,990 1,990
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 389,347 389,347
Central plateau remediation........................... 558,820 558,820
Richland community and regulatory support............. 15,156 15,156
Total, Hanford site..................................... 963,323 0 963,323
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 396,607 396,607
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 399,607 0 399,607
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,484 1,484
Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research 24,000 24,000
Unit.................................................
Nevada................................................ 64,641 64,641
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 5,000 5,000
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 239,143 239,143
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 334,268 0 334,268
Oak Ridge Reservation:
Building 3019......................................... 67,525 67,525
OR cleanup and disposition............................ 109,470 109,470
OR reservation community and regulatory support....... 4,500 4,500
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 181,495 0 181,495
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
01-D-416 A-E/ORP-0060 / Major construction.......... 690,000 690,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 482,113 482,113
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,172,113 0 1,172,113
Savannah River sites:
Savannah River risk management operations............. 444,089 444,089
SR community and regulatory support................... 16,584 16,584
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 698,294 698,294
disposition........................................
Construction:
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 22,549 22,549
River............................................
PE&D glass waste storage building #3.............. 0 0
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 720,843 0 720,843
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,181,516 0 1,181,516
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Waste isolation pilot plant........................... 198,010 198,010
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 198,010 0 198,010
Program direction....................................... 323,504 323,504
Program support......................................... 18,279 18,279
Safeguards and Security:
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 18,817 18,817
Paducah............................................... 8,909 8,909
Portsmouth............................................ 8,578 8,578
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 71,746 71,746
Savannah River Site................................... 121,977 121,977
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 4,977 4,977
West Valley........................................... 2,015 2,015
Total, Safeguards and Security.......................... 237,019 0 237,019
Technology development.................................. 20,000 10,000 30,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................ 463,000 463,000
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,494,124 10,000 5,504,124
Adjustments
Use of prior year balances........................... -12,123 -12,123
Use of unobligated balances.......................... -10,000 -10,000
Total, Adjustments...................................... -22,123 0 -22,123
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,472,001 10,000 5,482,001
Other Defense Activities
Health, safety and security
Health, safety and security........................... 139,325 139,325
Program direction..................................... 106,175 106,175
Undistributed adjustment.............................. -50,000 -50,000
Total, Health, safety and security...................... 245,500 -50,000 195,500
Specialized security activities......................... 188,619 188,619
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 164,477 164,477
Program direction..................................... 13,469 13,469
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 177,946 0 177,946
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support.................. 118,836 118,836
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 4,801 4,801
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 735,702 -50,000 685,702
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 735,702 -50,000 685,702
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
March 14, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed
legislation, titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013'', that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress.
The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is
stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) advises that for
section 533, Authority for Acceptance of Gifts and other
Private Support for Marine Corps University, because the gift
would be deposited into the Navy General Gift Fund under 10
U.S.C. 2601(c), the gift would earn interest under section
2601(g). The payment of this interest does not score for PAYGO
purposes. However, the subsequent outlay of any interest
earnings would score for PAYGO purposes. Given that the
expected gift amounts appear to be relatively small, OMB would
score interest earnings and subsequent PAYGO outlays to be
negligible.
The PAYGO effect of section 701 (Revisions to TRICARE cost
sharing requirements) are:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years (dollars in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending Effects................................ -397 -622 -978 -1,264 -1,563 -1,803 -2,051 -2,339 -2,681 -2,865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
March 28, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 6, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 9, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth L. King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 18, 2012.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 25, 2012.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013''.
The PAYGO effect of certain proposals is set forth below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years (dollars in millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Outlays 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce Minimum Length of ActiveService as a Commissioned 4.6 13.1 15.5 14.2 14.3 12.8 6.4 -2.5 -6.5 -6.7
Officer Required for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer....
Time-in-Grade Retirement WaiverLimitation for Lieutenant 23.7 47.1 45.0 42.8 40.5 13.0 -14.3 -14.7 -15.2 -15.6
Colonels and Colonels in Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps,
and Commanders and Captains in Navy........................
Number of Officers for Whom Service-in-Grade Requirements 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
May Be Reduced for Retirement in Grade Upon Voluntary
Retirement Upon Voluntary Retirement.......................
Force Management Enhancements--Subsec. (a) (Enhanced 3.9 31.3 70.2 90.2 102.5 79.4 29.2 5.2 -15.3 -31.8
Selective Early Retirement Boards and Early Discharges)....
Force Management Enhancements--Subsec. (b) (Reduce Years of 0.0 39.3 97.9 87.0 53 .9 35.3 1.1 -17.8 -18.3 -18.8
Service for Mandatory Retirement for Certain Officers in
Pay Grades O-5 and O-6)....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
May 4, 2012.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the second session of the 112th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth King,
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs).
Enclosure: As Stated
------
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology in H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral. This is, of
course, conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in
this legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral
waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Further, I request your support for the appointment of
Science, Space, and Technology Committee conferees during any
House-Senate conference convened on this and any similar
legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your
response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest be placed in
the legislative report on H.R. 4310 and the Congressional
Record during consideration of this measure on the House floor.
I look forward to working with you on this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Ralph M. Hall,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Ralph Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by forgoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Natural Resources
in matters being considered in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral. Of particular
note, in Section 28XX--Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction,
Fort Lee Military Reservation and Petersburg National
Battlefield, Virginia, the Committee agrees only to a 1.7 acre
land exchange. This waiver, of course, is conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my
decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural
Resources and that a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in
the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record
during consideration of this bill by the House.
The Committee on Natural Resources also asks that you
support our request to be conferees on the provisions over
which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
bill H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013. There are certain provisions in the
legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I
am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject
matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name
members of this committee to any conference committee which is
named to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
4310 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and
others between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Jeff Miller,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation
contains subject matter that falls within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. However,
due to our cooperation in working out text prior to your
markup, and in order to expedite Floor consideration of this
important legislation, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not
seek a sequential referral or object to Floor consideration of
the bill text approved at your Committee markup.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs takes this action
only with the understanding that our jurisdictional interests
in this bill, any subsequent amendments, and similar
legislation are in no way diminished or altered.
The Foreign Affairs Committee also reserves the right to
seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this
legislation, and requests your support if such a request is
made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in
your Committee report on the bill, and in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4310, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation which
fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding
that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation which fall within
the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the
Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference
committee named to consider such provisions.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee
report on H.R. 4310 and into the Congressional Record during
consideration of the measure on the House floor.
Sincerely,
John L. Mica,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. John Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by forgoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: On May 10, 2012, the Committee on
Armed Services ordered H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as amended, to be
reported to the House. As a result of your having consulted
with the Judiciary Committee concerning provisions of the bill
that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, and having made
amendments to the bill in consideration thereof, I am able to
agree to discharging our committee from further consideration
of the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House
Floor.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that, by forgoing consideration of H.R. 4310, as
amended, at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over
the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation,
and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and
involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so
that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our
Rule X jurisdiction. Our committee also reserves the right to
seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any
House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation,
and requests your support for any such request.
Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter
confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 4310, and
would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter
be included in your committee's report on H.R. 4310 and/or in
the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. However, in order
to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation,
the committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform takes this
action only with the understanding that the committee's
jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are
in no way diminished or altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by forgoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Thank you for
consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce
with regard to H.R. 4310 on those matters within the
committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 4310, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will
forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only
with the understanding that this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest
and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation
and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of
matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the
future.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a
conference with the Senate. I also request that you include our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on
H.R. 4310 and in the Congressional Record during consideration
of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
John Kline,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce
has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by forgoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this
exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on
the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4310, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.'' I
wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce
will forgo action on H.R. 4310 so that it may proceed
expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
This is done with the understanding that the Committee on
Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction on
this or similar legislation. In addition, the Committee
reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 4310 and requests
your support when such a request is made.
I would appreciate your response confirming this
understanding with respect to H.R. 4310 and ask that a copy of
our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the
House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by forgoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of
expediting the passage of H.R. 4310, the ``Fiscal Year 2013
National Defense Authorization Bill,'' the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further consideration
of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in H.R.
4310, including intelligence and intelligence-related
authorizations and provisions contained in the bill.
The Committee takes this action only with the understanding
that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's
jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill and
will not be considered as precedent for consideration of
matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the
future, including in connection with any subsequent
consideration of the bill by the House. In addition, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees
on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this
legislation.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record
during the House debate on H.R. 4310. I appreciate the
constructive work between our committees on this matter and
thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Mike Rogers,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by forgoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Financial Services
in H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013. The bill contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services under rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I
am willing to waive the Committee on Financial Services' right
to a sequential referral. I make this commitment with the
mutual understanding that this will not prejudice the Committee
on Financial Services with respect to its prerogatives on this
or similar legislation. Further, it is our mutual understanding
that the Committee on Financial Services be appropriately
consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves
forward so that we may address any issues relating to the
provisions that fall in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number
of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or
similar legislation, and requests your support of any such
request.
Further, I appreciate your agreement to include this letter
and a copy of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional
interest on this matter in your committee report and in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R.
4310.Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Spencer Bachus,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has
valid jurisdictional claims to a certain provision in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by forgoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial Services is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
bill H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013. There are certain provisions in the
legislation which fall within Rule X (q) of the Committee on
Small Business.
In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed
Services to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of
this important bill, I am willing to waive the right of the
Committee on Small Business to sequential referral. I do so
with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the
bill the Committee on Small Business does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the
bill which fall within its Rule X (q) jurisdiction, including
future bills that the Committee on Armed Services will
consider. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members
of this Committee to any conference committee which is named to
consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
4310 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and others
between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Sam Graves,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Sam Graves,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Small Business is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Budget in
matters being considered in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course,
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Budget Committee, and that a copy of this letter and your
response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be
included in the Committee Report and as part of the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the
House.
The Budget Committee also asks that you support our request
to be conferees on the provisions over which we have
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul Ryan,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on the Budget is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security
in matters being considered in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain
sections of the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential
referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual
understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision
to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise
affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security,
and that a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging
our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee
Report and as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill by the House. I also ask that you
support my request to name members of this committee to any
conference committee that is named to consider such provisions.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter T. King,
Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
Hon. Peter King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013. I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a
referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the
bill. I agree that by forgoing a sequential referral, the
Committee on Homeland Security is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
----------
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2013
and each of the following five fiscal years. The results of
such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate,
which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
May 11, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending effects
of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed
Services on May 9, 2012. CBO's complete cost estimate for H.R.
4310, including discretionary costs, will be provided shortly.
Based on legislative language for H.R. 4310 that was
provided to CBO from May 2 through May 10, CBO estimates that
enacting this bill would decrease net direct spending by $33
million in 2013, $554 million over the 2013-2017 period, and
$44 million over the 2013-2022 period. Because the bill would
affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
The largest cost over that 10-year period results from a
provision that would limit the ability of the Department of
Defense to increase the copayments charged to beneficiaries who
use the TRICARE pharmacy program. Those costs would be offset
by savings from a provision that would require certain TRICARE
beneficiaries to obtain refills of maintenance medications
through TRICARE's national mail-order pharmacy.
H.R. 4310 also would increase spending from the Military
Retirement Fund for the increased number of military
retirements that would result from several new authorities.
Additional savings would be achieved by reducing the amount of
funds available to be spent from the Pentagon Reservation
Maintenance Revolving Fund.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Schmit, who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344):
(1) This legislation does not provide budget
authority subject to an allocation made pursuant to
section 302(b) of Public Law 93-344;
(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate
included in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
contains CBO's projection of how this legislation will
affect the levels of budget authority, budget outlays,
revenues, and tax expenditures for fiscal year 2013 and
for the ensuring five fiscal years; and
(3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget
authority for assistance to state and local governments
by this measure at the time that this report was filed.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget
Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the
requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the
committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.
ADVISORY OF EARMARKS
The committee finds that H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as reported, does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are
reflected in the body of this report.
With respect to clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of
H.R. 4310 is to meet the national security needs of a nation at
war while preparing our warfighters for the threats of tomorrow
wherever and whenever they might emerge. This legislation meets
that goal while taking steps to make the difficult choices of
fiscal stewardship incumbent upon Congress in a time of
economic stress. Only by providing for the common defense in an
efficient, fiscally responsible manner can the nation address
our national security challenges.
The bill implements a number of recommendations from the
committee's Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform. The bill strengthens oversight of the
Department's enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems by
requiring designation of a senior official to manage data
conversion, risk mitigation plans, and an assessment of the
Department's information system control needs. These actions
are essential to financial management at the Department of
Defense and critical for the development of reliable financial
statements.
The bill sustains equipment and weapon systems vital to the
success of our service men and women while taking steps to
provide them more efficiently. The bill strengthens our
military depots and arsenals and reinforces the need for
competition throughout the life-cycle of weapon systems.
Consistent with the committee's previous efforts to enhance
total workforce management at the Department of Defense, with a
holistic review of its manpower and elimination of arbitrary
cost targets, the bill requires the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to certify that the
Department is implementing existing requirements with regard to
inventories of contract services. The committee believes such
inventories are a fundamental tool for the Department to
determine the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and
contractor personnel to meet the Department's requirements.
The bill establishes new federal procurement goals for the
award of prime contracts to small businesses and establishes
for the first time, statutory goals for awards of subcontracts
to small business. The committee believes that increasing
opportunities for small businesses in Federal contracting will
spur innovation and ultimately reduce costs by incentivizing
greater competition.
The bill takes steps to strengthen the national defense
strategic planning process in order to provide a solid basis
for future Quadrennial Defense Reviews and to support an
independent review of the future of the Army. The committee
believes that proper strategic planning can reduce waste while
protecting the joint warfighting capability of the Department
of Defense from arbitrary cuts.
In recognition of the service and sacrifice of the men and
women of our Armed Forces and their families, the bill includes
a 1.7 percent increase in military pay. While the bill does
allow for modest increases in TRICARE pharmacy co-pay fees in
fiscal year 2013, it recognizes the service of our service men
and women as a down payment for their healthcare benefits.
Therefore, the bill caps future pharmacy co-pay increases to
the annual retiree cost of living adjustments. These costs are
offset by a 5-year pilot program that requires TRICARE for life
recipients to obtain refills of maintenance drugs through the
TRICARE mail-order program.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The committee finds that this legislation does not relate
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
COMMITTEE VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 4310. The
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
The committee ordered H.R. 4310 to be reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 56-5, a quorum
being present.
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 13
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Turner.
Description: Construction of defense nuclear facilities
transfer for DOD.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 36 25 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 14
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Turner.
Description: Construction of CMRR facility in New Mexico.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 38 24 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 15
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Wittman.
Description: Prohibit additional base realignment and
closure actions.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 44 18 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 16
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 36r1 Offered By Messrs.
Conaway and Thornberry.
Description: Limit availability of funds for alternative
fuels.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ X .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 29 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 17
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 35 Offered By Mr. Conaway.
Description: Exempt DOD from Section 526 of 2007 Energy
Independence and Security Act.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 36 25 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 18
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 84r1 Offered by Mr. Garamendi.
Description: Strike requirement that DOD ensures East coast
missile defense base.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 33 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 19
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 147r1 Offered By Ms. Sanchez.
Description: Reduce the amount for ground-based midcourse
missile defense strategy.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ X .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 36 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 20
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 153 Offered By Ms. Sanchez.
Description: Strike funding for nuclear weapons activities
in NNSA.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ X .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 23 39 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 21
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 3r2 Offered By Mr. Lamborn.
Description: Prohibit funds to implement international
agreements on space activities.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 37 25 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 22
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 141r1 Offered By Mr. Turner.
Description: Add the Turner Maintaining Commitments Act to
the NDAA.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 34 28 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 23
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 197r1 Offered By Mr. Johnson.
Description: Require Secretary of Defense and CJCS report
to defense committees on nuclear weapons reductions in NEW
START treaty.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ X .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. Davis...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 24
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 127 Offered By Mr. Andrews.
Description: Funds for environmental and atomic energy for
NNSA.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ X .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. Davis...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 25
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 43 Offered By Mr. Franks.
Description: Report on conventional and nuclear forces in
Western Pacific Region.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... X ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 26 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 26
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 209 Offered By Ms. Sanchez.
Description: Changes to the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ X .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 33 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 27
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing Amendment No. 54r1 Offered By Mr. Palazzo.
Description: Use of military installations as sites for
marriage or marriage-like ceremonies.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 37 24 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 28
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 200 Offered By Mr. Aiken.
Description: Establish a conscience protection clause for
military chaplains.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 36 25 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 29
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 85 Offered By Mr. Garmendi.
Description: Study for cost-effectiveness, readiness issues
for transfer of Navy project from Lemoore to Pt. Mugu, CA.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 32 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 30
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 128 Offered By Mr. Andrews.
Description: Funds for B-2 EHF radio; ballistic missile
defense mid-course segment.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 35 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 31
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 177 Offered By Mr. Kissell.
Description: Berry amendment change regarding uniforms for
Afghanistan National Army and National Police.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 41 20 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 32
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 208 Offered By Mr. Smith.
Description: Strike Section 1216.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ X .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... ........ X .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... ........ X .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ X .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ X .......... Ms. Pingree..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ X .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ X .......... Mr. Garamendi... X ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ X .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ X ........ ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ X .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ X .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 34 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 33
h.r. 4310
On Agreeing to Amendment No. 29 Offered By Mr. Rigell.
Description: Remove moratorium preventing DOD from using
OMB A-76 to conduct public-private competitions.
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ X ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ X .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ X .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... ........ X ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... ........ X ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... ........ X ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... ........ X .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... ........ X .......... Mr. ........ X ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ X .......... Ms. Sutton...... ........ X ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ X ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Schilling................. ........ X .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ X .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 25 36 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
112th Congress
roll call vote no. 34
h.r. 4310
Description: Final Passage of H.R. 4310, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, As Amended
Wednesday: May 9, 2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McKeon.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Bartlett.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Reyes....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Thornberry................ X ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. McIntyre.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Akin...................... X ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Andrews..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Jeff Miller............... X ........ .......... Mrs. S. Davis... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... X ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. X ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... X ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Loebsack.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... X ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... X ........ .......... Ms. Pingree..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... X ........ .......... Mr. Kissell..... X ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Heinrich.... X ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Owens....... X ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... X ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ X ..........
Mr. Coffman................... X ........ .......... Mr. Critz....... X ........ ..........
Mr. Rooney.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Ryan........ ........ X ..........
Mr. Platts.................... X ........ .......... Mr. X ........ ..........
Ruppersberger.
Mr. Rigell.................... X ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ X ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... X ........ .......... Ms. Sutton...... X ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. X ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... X ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... X ........ .......... Ms. Hochul...... X ........ ..........
Mr. Schilling................. X ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ X ..........
Mr. Runyan.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Griffin................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Palazzo................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. West...................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mrs. Roby..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Young..................... X ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 56 5 .......... ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The committee has taken steps to make available the
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as
soon as possible.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE LORETTA SANCHEZ
I support many important provisions in the mark that
promotes a strong national security. However, there are several
provisions related to strategic forces that I opposed and
continue to be concerned about.
The bill includes several sweeping governance and
management reforms of the nuclear security enterprise that will
undermine independent oversight related to health, safety,
including nuclear safety, for the nuclear weapons complex and
lead to weaker or inconsistent standards for protecting workers
and the public. These provisions could have profound risks for
people's lives.
I am also concerned about the increases in funding for
nuclear weapons by over $400 million over the President's
budget request. These increases remain unnecessary and squander
money on programs that are not needed to maintain a safe,
secure and reliable arsenal and do not help address the most
urgent threats, including reducing the dangers of nuclear
weapons and the risk of terrorists acquiring a crude nuclear
weapon.
The bill also unnecessarily increases funding for Ground-
Based Midcourse defense program by over $350 million while test
failures are still being addressed. It also mandates a costly
East Coast missile defense site which is aimed at a threat that
does not yet exist, could cost billions of dollars compared to
current hedging strategies.
These funding increases are out of step with an environment
of fiscal crisis, and do not increase our national security.
Loretta Sanchez.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE HANK JOHNSON
Although I am supportive of H.R. 4310, I remain concerned
about some of the provisions in the bill. While I believe that
the House Armed Services Committee has produced a bill that
streamlines the operations of the Department of Defense and
cuts unnecessary and redundant programs, there are still
perfections to be made to this legislation.
I am specifically concerned about language in Section 215
of this bill that sends an ambiguous message to the Department
of Defense and industry regarding the F-136 propulsion system
for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
The Secretary of Defense and senior leadership of the Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have repeatedly testified before
the House Armed Services Committee that they do not require the
F-136 engine and believe it to be an unnecessary and
extravagant expense. Congress has also extensively analyzed and
debated this issue, ultimately resolving to strip funding for
the F-136 program in February 2011. I believe that this issue
has been decided and any provision that sends an unclear
message to the Department of Defense on Congress' view on the
F-136 program will only cause further unnecessary spending.
I also believe that more should be done to end the outdated
and unneeded Selective Service System. I am pleased the
committee included an amendment that would require the
Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive study of the
System, but I believe that will merely postpone the obvious.
The United States has not had a draft since 1973. In 1979,
Jimmy Carter reinstated the requirement for men to register
with Selective Service in response to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. This requirement to register was meant to be for a
limited period and has never been used. The Selective Service
system has cost the taxpayers over $700 million since it was
reinstated, and ending the program will result in annual
savings of $25 million that can be used to pay down our
national debt.
I will continue to press to end this System, but in the
meantime I am confident this Government Accountability Office
report will provide more proof that it is the right thing to
do.
Hank Johnson.
DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARAMENDI
As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC),
preserving and strengthening our national security is a
foremost priority of mine. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was reported out of the
HASC on May 10, 2012, is not a responsible bill, and therefore
I could not support it.
In its current form, the NDAA is laden with wasteful
spending and reckless national security policies. A prime
example of waste is the inclusion of a $100 million down
payment on a $5.5 billion authorization to advance a third
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile site in the United
States, which the Defense Department has deemed unnecessary and
does not want. The bill also states that such a site should be
operational by 2015.
Regarding reckless national security policies, this bill
would deviate from the President's strategy in winding down the
war in Afghanistan. In doing so, it would support a new U.S.
military mission in that country of keeping at least 68,000
troops on the ground beyond December 31, 2014 for the purpose
of nation building.
Furthermore, the bill does not rectify a dangerous
provision that was included in the FY 2012 NDAA which allows
the military to indefinitely detain any person without being
charged or tried. Instead, it needlessly guarantees Habeas
Corpus rights, but this does nothing to resolve the fact that
individuals may still be detained for any length of time. In an
attempt to resolve the underlying matter, I offered an
amendment to apply Due Process protections to persons in the
U.S. However, after seeking a waiver of the Judiciary Committee
jurisdiction, my request was denied and I was forced to
withdraw my amendment from consideration.
The bill makes illogical changes to our military readiness.
It redirects a critical Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR) project from Beale Air Force Base, a
mission-ready ISR base in Northern California, to a Navy air
base in Southern California that does not have a sustained
history of operating and maintaining the Global Hawk system.
The Navy cited the Air Force's decision to divest of the Global
Hawk Block 30 and the resulting lack of synergies and cost
savings between the branches as the reason for the transfer.
However, the bill does not terminate the Block 30, which should
make such a transfer a moot point. Unfortunately, the language
in the bill would authorize the transfer anyway. I offered an
amendment requiring a GAO study on the cost-effectiveness and
readiness implications of the transfer, but it was defeated
along party lines.
The NDAA also contains a provision that would weaken health
and safety requirements at National Nuclear Security
Administration facilities, such as the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory. I voted for
an amendment that would have removed this dangerous provision
and will continue to stand for the highest safety standards at
nuclear facilities.
While unfortunately the fiscal irresponsibility and
reckless policy decisions included in the bill ultimately
caused me to vote against it, there were provisions that I did
support. As previously noted, the NDAA preserves the Global
Hawk Block 30 program. It also takes steps to preserve our
current MC-12 force structure. Both of these critical ISR
missions are based at Beale Air Force Base. The NDAA also
includes a well-deserved pay increase for our troops.
Providing for the common defense is one of the Government's
most important responsibilities, and the NDAA is the
legislative vehicle that is the plan for this. I look forward
to working with my colleagues in the Full House of
Representatives and in the Senate to improve the bill.
John Garamendi.