[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.

                                  
