" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

74–128 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2012

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

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 AmbushProtected 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XX 

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, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXI 

Section 1508—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide ............................................................................................................ 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-Prote ́ge ́ 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXII 

Part III—Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program ................................................................. 294 

Section 1641—Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIV 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXV 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVI 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVIII 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74–128 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

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 timesensitive 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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 longstanding 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 signifiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

cantly 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

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 authoriza- tion 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here HR479.001
10 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here HR479.002
11 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here HR479.003
12 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here HR479.004
13 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here HR479.005
14 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here HR479.006
15 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here HR479.007
16 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here HR479.008
17 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here HR479.009
18 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here HR479.010
19 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here HR479.011
21 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here HR479.012
22 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here HR479.013
23 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

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 fullrate 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 minVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

imum, 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 deVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

fense 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 counterfire 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 lowrate initial production, and the G/ATOR program is just entering 

low-rate initial production. Therefore, the committee encourages 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

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 realtime 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 largescale 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

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 fullrate 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

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 amphibVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

ious 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

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 intertheater 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

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 intertheater 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 laydown 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 intratheater 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.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

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 intratheater airlift inventory puts at significant risk the Air Force’s ability to meet both title 10 and title 32, United States Code, intratheater 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 intraVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

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 riskbased, 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

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 NonStandard 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

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 conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

cluded 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

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, steadystate, 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/MissionCritical 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

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 senVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

sors. 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

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 realtime 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 lifeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

span 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 soluVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

tion, 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 In- fantry 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

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 contribuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

tion 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

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-theloop 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

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-andcontrolled 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 nonlethal 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

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 riskreduction 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

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 fullscale 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

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 nondevelopmental 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 ad- vanced 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

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 spacebased 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

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 inneraural 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

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 nonnuclear 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

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 frontend 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 DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

partment, 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

emphasis to the Asia-Pacific and other regions that present antiaccess 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

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 Sectorby-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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

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 comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

mittee 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 highbandwidth 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 parVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

ticularly 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

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 costavoidance 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 encourVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

ages 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 rec- ommends 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

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 simulationbased 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 felVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

lowships. 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

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 nonlethal 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 highvalue, 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

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 spacebased 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 conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

tact 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

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 Xplanes, including novel acquisition methods such as competitive 

prize awards that have been successfully applied in other fields. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

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 statesponsored 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

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 tarVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

get 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 flightdemonstrate 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

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 SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

retary 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

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 Xband 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

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-, spacebased, 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

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 naVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

tional 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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

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 standVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

ing, 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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

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; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

(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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

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 nonprofit 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

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 Longterm 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

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 Armywide 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 maxVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

imum 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 longterm 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

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 De- vice 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

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’ intrabudget 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: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

(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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

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 operVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

ations. 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 conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

gressional 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 dollarvalue 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

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 homestation 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

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 riskbased 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

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: 

Service FY 2012 

Authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 

Commmitte 

Recommendation 

FY 2013 

Request 

FY 2012 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

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: 

Service FY 2012 

Authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 

Commmitte 

Recommendation 

FY 2013 

Request 

FY 2012 

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: 

Service FY 2012 

Authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 

Commmitte 

Recommendation 

FY 2013 

Request 

FY 2012 

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: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

Service FY 2012 

Authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 

Commmitte 

Recommendation 

FY 2013 

Request 

FY 2012 

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: 

Service FY 2012 

Authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 

Commmitte 

Recommendation 

FY 2013 

Request 

FY 2012 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

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. 

Service FY 2012 

Authorized 

FY 2013 Change from 

Request 

Commmitte 

Recommendation 

FY 2013 

Request 

FY 2012 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

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 prisonerof-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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

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 inand-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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

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 chilVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

dren, 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

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 wellVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 

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-ingrade. The limit under current law is 2 percent. The authority 

would expire September 30, 2018. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
163 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

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 acrossthe-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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

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 retireVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

ment 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

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 highpriority 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 inactiveduty 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

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 auVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

thorities 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

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 dysVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

function 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

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 MailOrder 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

Section 722—Extension of Comptroller General Report on WomenSpecific 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 HumanBased 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

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 DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

ment 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 selfvalidate 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 largescale services and reconstruction projects. The committee notes 

that operational contract support and reconstruction activities of 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

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 semitrailers that it procures. The current procedure requires that when 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

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-theshelf 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

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 foreignproduced 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

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) relatVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

ing 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

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’ reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

quired 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

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 underutilized 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

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 ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

gram 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 exVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
206 

penses 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
207 

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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 

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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
209 

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 interagency 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
210 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 

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 counterdrug 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
212 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
213 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
214 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
215 

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; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
216 

(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; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
217 

(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 reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

sources 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

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 tradeoffs; 

(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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
223 

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 operVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 

ations, 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
225 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
226 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
227 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
228 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
229 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
230 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
231 

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 CounterDrug 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 CounterTerrorism 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). 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
232 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
233 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 

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. nuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 

clear 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
237 

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 inVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
238 

cludes 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
239 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
240 

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 comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
241 

manding 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
242 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
243 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
244 

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). 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
245 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
246 

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 militaryto-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 Afghanistanbased 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 seVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
247 

curity 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, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
248 

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 AsiaPacific 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
249 

(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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
250 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
251 

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 alGaddafi, 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 underVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
252 

taken 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 deployVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
253 

ments. 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; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
254 

(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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
255 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
256 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
257 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
261 

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 AsiaPacific 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 selfdefense 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
263 

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 companyand 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
264 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

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 nonGIRoA 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
266 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
267 

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. ForcesIraq. 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 organiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

cally 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

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 burdensharing 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 obligaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 

tion 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, counterspace 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

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 coordinaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
273 

tion; 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
274 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

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– 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

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 recVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

ommendations 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-Prote ́ge ́ Program 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense MentorProte ́ge ́ Program (MPP) is critical. The program assists small businesses (prote ́ge ́s) 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-prote ́ge ́ agreements develop a symbiotic relationship for the 

prote ́ge ́, 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-prote ́ge ́ 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

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 factbased 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 opportuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

nities, 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
292 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

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 Governmentwide 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

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-PROTE ́ GE ́ PROGRAM 

Section 1641—Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ 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-prote ́ge ́ program for small business concerns. This section would also require the Administrator to 

issue, subject to notice and comment, regulations with respect to 

mentor-prote ́ge ́s programs at agencies other than the Department 

of Defense. The section would not apply to the Department of Defense mentor-prote ́ge ́s 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 prote ́ge ́s 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

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 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

formance 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

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 curVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

rent 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

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 wasteto-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 longterm 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 inVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

vestments. 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

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 advanceproject 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

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 enVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

ergy 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
323 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
324 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
325 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
326 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
327 

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 workplan, 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 

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-ofthe-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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
329 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

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 reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
331 

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 longterm 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 ‘‘longterm relationships between the Government and FFRDCs are encouraged in order to provide the continuity that will attract highquality 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.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
333 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
334 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
335 

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 impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00365 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
336 

mentation 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
339 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

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 heavyhanded 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.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

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-nuVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

clear 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 FundVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

ed 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
347 

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 evennumbered 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
348 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
349 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
352 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
353 

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 securityrelated enrichment technology, funds otherwise made available in 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
354 

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 misVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00384 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
355 

sion, 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
356 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

1 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................... 2 18,639 2 18,639 3 MQ–1 UAV ............................................................................................................. 19 518,088 19 518,088 4 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ..................................................................................................... 234 25,798 234 25,798 

ROTARY 

6 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ........................................................................ 34 271,983 34 271,983 7 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN ...................................................................... 40 577,115 40 577,115 8 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 107,707 107,707 9 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ............................................................... 8 153,993 8 153,993 

10 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 146,121 146,121 13 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ................................................................... 59 1,107,087 59 1,107,087 14 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 115,113 115,113 15 CH–47 HELICOPTER .............................................................................................. 38 1,076,036 38 1,076,036 16 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 83,346 83,346 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

18 MQ–1 PAYLOAD—UAS .......................................................................................... 231,508 231,508 20 GUARDRAIL MODS (MIP) ........................................................................................ 16,272 16,272 21 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ........................................................................ 4,294 4,294 22 AH–64 MODS ......................................................................................................... 178,805 178,805 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

23 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ............................................................ 39,135 39,135 24 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ........................................................................... 24,842 24,842 26 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ................................................................................... 73,804 73,804 27 KIOWA WARRIOR MODS ......................................................................................... 192,484 192,484 29 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN ............................................................................... 190,789 190,789 30 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE ................................................................................ 133,191 133,191 31 GATM ROLLUP ........................................................................................................ 87,280 87,280 32 RQ–7 UAV MODS ................................................................................................... 104,339 104,339 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

34 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 34,037 34,037 36 CMWS .................................................................................................................... 127,751 127,751 

OTHER SUPPORT 

37 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 4,886 4,886 38 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 82,511 82,511 39 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 77,381 77,381 40 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................................... 47,235 47,235 41 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .......................................................................................... 1,643 1,643 42 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ...................................................................................... 516 516 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 434 5,853,729 434 5,853,729 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 PATRIOT SYSTEM SUMMARY .................................................................................. 84 646,590 50,000 84 696,590 

Additional PAC–3 missiles ........................................................................... [50,000 ] 

2 MSE MISSILE ......................................................................................................... 12,850 12,850 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

4 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1,401 10,000 11,401

Program increase ......................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

5 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ................................................................. 400 81,121 400 81,121 6 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY .................................................................................... 1,403 64,712 1,403 64,712 7 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 19,931 19,931 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

8 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ........................................................................... 1,608 218,679 1,608 218,679 9 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .......................................... 2,430 18,767 2,430 18,767 

10 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ........................................................ 12,051 12,051 

MODIFICATIONS 

11 PATRIOT MODS ...................................................................................................... 199,565 199,565 13 MLRS MODS ........................................................................................................... 2,466 2,466 

14 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 6,068 6,068 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

16 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 7,864 7,864 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

17 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS .......................................................................................... 3,864 3,864 18 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MISSILES) ........................................................... 1,560 1,560 19 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 5,200 5,200 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................... 5,925 1,302,689 60,000 5,925 1,362,689 

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 (MOD) .............................................................................................. 57,257 57,2575 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ................................................................................... 148,193 140,000 288,193 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [140,000 ] 

6 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ................................................... 10,341 10,341 7 PALADIN PIM MOD IN SERVICE ............................................................................. 17 206,101 17 206,101 8 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ........................................... 31 107,909 20 62,000 51 169,909 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
361 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [20] [62,000 ] 

9 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ............................................................................... 10 50,039 10 50,039 

10 M88 FOV MODS ..................................................................................................... 29,930 29,930 11 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ...................................................................................... 129,090 129,090 12 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ............................................................................... 74,433 181,000 255,433 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [181,000 ] 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

13 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 1,145 1,145 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

14 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY .............................................. 506 –506 0 

XM25 funding ahead of need ...................................................................... [–506 ] 

17 LIGHTWEIGHT .50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN ........................................................... 610 25,183 610 25,183 19 MORTAR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 8,104 8,104 21 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ....................................................... 2,280 14,096 2,280 14,096 24 CARBINE ................................................................................................................ 12,000 21,272 12,000 21,272 25 SHOTGUN, MODULAR ACCESSORY SYSTEM (MASS) .............................................. 2,107 6,598 2,107 6,598 26 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ............................................ 240 56,725 240 56,725 27 HOWITZER LT WT 155MM (T) ................................................................................ 13,827 13,827 

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 MACHINE GUN MODS ......................................................................... 39,974 39,974 32 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .......................................................................... 4,996 4,996 33 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS .................................................................... 6,806 6,806 34 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 14,113 14,113 35 M119 MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 20,727 20,727 36 M16 RIFLE MODS .................................................................................................. 3,306 3,306 37 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................ 3,072 3,072 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

38 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (WOCV-WTCV) ...................................................... 2,026 2,026 39 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ........................................................ 10,115 10,115 40 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................. 442 442 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
362 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

41 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) .................................................. 2,378 2,378 

SPARES 

42 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS (WTCV) ..................................................................... 31,217 31,217 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ............................................... 17,353 1,501,706 20 382,494 17,373 1,884,200 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 158,313 –34,800 123,513 

Unit cost savings ......................................................................................... [–34,800 ] 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 91,438 91,438 3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 8,954 8,954 4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 109,604 109,604 5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 4,041 4,041 6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 12,654 12,654 7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 72,154 –18,000 54,154 

Pricing adjustments for target practice round and light-weight dual-purpose round. [–18,000 ] 

8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 60,138 60,138 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 44,375 44,375 

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 27,471 27,471 11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ................................................................................. 87,811 87,811 

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ......................................... 112,380 112,380 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM AND 105MM, ALL TYP ....................................... 50,861 50,861 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
363 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 26,227 26,227 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982 ............................................................... 110,329 –55,000 55,329 

Excalibur I-b round schedule delay ............................................................. [–55,000 ] 

16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL .......................................... 43,924 43,924 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ........................................................... 3,775 3,775 

NETWORKED MUNITIONS 

18 SPIDER NETWORK MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 17,408 17,408 

ROCKETS 

19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .................................................... 1,005 1,005 20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................ 123,433 123,433 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

21 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 35,189 35,189 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 33,477 33,477 23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 9,991 9,991 24 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................... 10,388 10,388 

MISCELLANEOUS 

25 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .......................................................................... 19,383 19,383 26 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ................................................................. 7,336 7,336 27 CAD/PAD ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 6,641 6,641 28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 15,092 15,092 29 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 15,692 15,692 30 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) .................................................... 14,107 14,107 31 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES ........................................................................................... 106 106 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

32 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .................................................................. 220,171 220,171 33 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION, ALL ............................................. 182,461 182,461 34 ARMS INITIATIVE .................................................................................................... 3,377 3,377 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ...................................... 1,739,706 –107,800 1,631,906 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
364 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

1 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: ...................................................................................... 27 7,097 27 7,0972 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) ........................................................... 1,248 346,115 1,248 346,115 3 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................ 19,292 19,292 4 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ..................................................... 1,534 52,933 1,534 52,933 5 PLS ESP ................................................................................................................. 18,035 18,035 9 TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/M916 .......................................................... 12 3,619 12 3,619 

10 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ........................................... 60 26,859 60 26,859 12 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ................................................... 950 69,163 950 69,163 13 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP ........................................................................... 91,754 91,754 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

18 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 2,548 2,548 19 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ........................................................................... 16,791 16,791 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

20 JOINT COMBAT IDENTIFICATION MARKING SYSTEM ............................................... 7,038 10,061 7,038 10,061 21 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK .................................................... 2,166 892,635 –20,000 2,166 872,635 

Program adjustment .................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

22 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 45,626 45,626 23 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ............................................................................. 5,143 5,143 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

24 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .......................................... 23 151,636 23 151,636 25 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ................................... 6,822 6,822 26 SHF TERM .............................................................................................................. 9,108 9,108 28 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................ 3,592 27,353 3,592 27,353 29 SMART-T (SPACE) .................................................................................................. 98,656 98,656 

31 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ................................................................................. 47,131 47,131 32 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) ......................................................................... 39 23,281 39 23,281 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
365 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

34 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) .................................................... 10,848 10,848 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

35 ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) ............................................... 979 979 36 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ............................................................................ 11,059 556,250 –35,000 11,059 521,250 

Program adjustment .................................................................................... [–35,000 ] 

37 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) .............................................. 86,219 –10,000 76,219 

Program adjustment .................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

38 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) ...................................................................... 7,798 7,798 39 SINCGARS FAMILY ................................................................................................. 9,001 9,001 40 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ................................................................................ 108 24,601 108 24,60141 TRACTOR DESK ...................................................................................................... 7,779 7,779 43 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT .................................................................. 34,365 –15,000 19,365 

Program delay .............................................................................................. [–15,000 ] 

44 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS .................................... 1,833 1,833 45 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM ...................................... 12,984 12,984 47 GUNSHOT DETECTION SYSTEM (GDS) .................................................................... 46 2,332 46 2,332 48 RADIO, IMPROVED HF (COTS) FAMILY ................................................................... 1,132 1,132 49 MEDICAL COMM FOR CBT CASUALTY CARE (MC4) .............................................. 2,535 22,899 2,535 22,899 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

51 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................ 1,564 1,564 52 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 1,540 28,781 1,540 28,781 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

53 TSEC—ARMY KEY MGT SYS (AKMS) ..................................................................... 6,087 23,432 6,087 23,432 54 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP ................................................ 2,469 43,897 2,469 43,897 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

56 TERRESTRIAL TRANSMISSION ................................................................................ 2,891 2,891 57 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................... 13,872 13,872 58 WW TECH CON IMP PROG (WWTCIP) ..................................................................... 9,595 9,595 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

59 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 142,133 142,133 61 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ........................................ 57,727 57,727 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
366 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

62 PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND TELECOM ...................................................... 5,000 5,000 

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 GROUND STATION (JTAGS) ........................................................... 5 2,680 5 2,680 71 TROJAN (MIP) ......................................................................................................... 21,483 21,483 72 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ............................................................ 2,412 2,412 73 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND COLLECTION .................................................. 7,077 7,077 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

75 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR .............................................................. 43 72,594 43 72,594 76 CREW ..................................................................................................................... 15,446 15,446 78 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ...................................... 1,470 1,470 79 CI MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................... 1,368 1,368 

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 THE WALL (STTW) ...................................................................... 6,212 6,212 83 NIGHT VISION DEVICES .......................................................................................... 8,687 166,516 8,687 166,516 85 NIGHT VISION, THERMAL WPN SIGHT .................................................................... 82,162 82,162 86 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF ................................................ 20,717 20,717 89 GREEN LASER INTERDICTION SYSTEM (GLIS) ....................................................... 1,014 1,014 90 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ............................................... 29,881 29,881 91 PROFILER ............................................................................................................... 136 12,482 136 12,482 92 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ..................................................... 3,075 3,075 94 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) .................................................... 1,032 141,385 1,032 141,385 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
367 

96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .............................................................................. 22,403 22,403 98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .......................................................................... 29,505 29,505 99 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .......................................................................................... 13 244,409 13 244,409 

100 ENHANCED SENSOR & MONITORING SYSTEM (WMD) ........................................... 2,426 2,426 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

101 TACTICAL OPERATIONS CENTERS .......................................................................... 133 30,196 133 30,196 102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ..................................................................................... 1,642 58,903 1,642 58,903 103 BATTLE COMMAND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM ........................................... 445 8,111 445 8,111 104 FAAD C2 ................................................................................................................ 5,031 5,031 105 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS ................................................ 12 64,144 12 64,144 106 KNIGHT FAMILY ...................................................................................................... 11,999 11,999 107 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) .............................................................. 1,853 1,853 108 AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................ 14,377 14,377 111 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ........................................ 59,821 59,821 112 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ................................................................... 721 51,228 721 51,228 113 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE (SALE) ...................................................... 5,976 176,901 5,976 176,901 114 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ......................................... 15,209 15,209 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

115 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ......................................................................... 8,866 8,866 116 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ................................................................. 129,438 129,438 117 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYS FAM ................................................ 9,184 9,184 118 CSS COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................................................... 2,062 20,639 2,062 20,639 119 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) ................................................. 35,493 35,493 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

120 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (A/V) ..................................................................... 8,467 8,467 121 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 89 5,309 89 5,309 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

122 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) ...................................................................... 586 586 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

124A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 3,435 3,435 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ......................................................... 1,562 3,960 1,562 3,960 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
368 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................ 637 4,374 637 4,374 128 CBRN SOLDIER PROTECTION ................................................................................. 219 9,259 219 9,259

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

130 TACTICAL BRIDGING .............................................................................................. 7 35,499 7 35,499 131 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ........................................................................ 68 32,893 68 32,893 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

134 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ....................................................... 29,106 29,106 135 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) ...................................... 522 25,459 522 25,459 136 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 364 8,044 364 8,044 137 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 3,698 3,698 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

138 HEATERS AND ECU’S ............................................................................................. 1,332 12,210 1,332 12,210 139 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ....................................................................................... 6,522 6,522 140 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) ............................................... 11,222 11,222 141 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM .................................................................................... 5,226 103,317 5,226 103,317 144 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 228 27,417 228 27,417 

145 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM .................................... 8,891 52,065 8,891 52,065 146 MORTUARY AFFAIRS SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 2,358 2,358 147 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ......................................... 266 31,573 266 31,573 148 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 818 14,093 818 14,093 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

149 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER .................................................. 208 36,266 208 36,266 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

150 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ................................................................................. 1,938 34,101 1,938 34,101 151 MEDEVAC MISSON EQUIPMENT PACKAGE (MEP) ................................................... 20,540 20,540 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
369 

152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS ...................................................... 20 2,495 20 2,495 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

154 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) ................................................................ 2,028 2,028 156 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING .................................................................................... 9 6,146 9 6,146 157 MISSION MODULES—ENGINEERING ...................................................................... 40 31,200 40 31,200 161 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ...................................................................................... 61 20,867 61 20,867 162 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ........................................................................................... 1 4,003 1 4,003 163 PLANT, ASPHALT MIXING ....................................................................................... 1 3,679 1 3,679164 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) .................................................... 76 30,042 76 30,042 165 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPA ............................................... 182 13,725 182 13,725 166 CONST EQUIP ESP ................................................................................................. 47 13,351 47 13,351 167 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (CONST EQUIP) .................................................... 9,134 9,134 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

170 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (FLOAT/RAIL) ........................................................ 10,552 10,552 

GENERATORS 

171 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ................................................................. 2,074 60,302 2,074 60,302 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

173 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ........................................................................................... 64 5,895 64 5,895 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

175 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT ................................................................. 339 104,649 339 104,649 176 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM ........................................................................... 125,251 125,251 177 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER ...................................................................... 8 19,984 8 19,984 178 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER .................................................... 10,977 10,977 179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING ...................................... 4,056 4,056 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

180 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 3 10,494 3 10,494 181 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ................................................. 1,674 45,508 1,674 45,508 182 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ........................................................ 2,786 24,334 2,786 24,334 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

183 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................... 5,078 5,078 184 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) .................................................................. 46,301 46,301 185 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 1,373 1,373 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
370 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

186 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ................................................... 248 59,141 248 59,141 187 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ...................................................................... 2,446 2,446 188 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ............................................................. 206 12,920 206 12,920 189 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS OPA3 ................................................................................... 1,141 19,180 1,141 19,180 190 TRACTOR YARD ...................................................................................................... 7,368 7,368 191 UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE .............................................................................. 311 83,937 311 83,937 

OPA2 

193 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .......................................................................................... 34 64,507 34 64,507 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ...................................................... 94,966 6,326,245 –80,000 94,966 6,246,245 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

04 OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 227,414 –227,414 0 

Transfer of funds to title 15 ....................................................................... [–227,414 ] 

TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND ................................ 227,414 –227,414 0 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

1 EA–18G .................................................................................................................. 12 1,027,443 –30,000 12 997,443 

Cost growth-CFE electronics, non-recurring costs ...................................... [–30,000 ] 

2 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 45,000 45,000 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [45,000 ] 

3 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .............................................................................. 26 2,035,131 –46,000 26 1,989,131 

Cost growth-CFE electronics, support costs ............................................... [–46,000 ] 

4 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 30,296 30,296 5 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ..................................................................................... 4 1,007,632 4 1,007,632 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
371 

6 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 65,180 65,180 7 JSF STOVL .............................................................................................................. 6 1,404,737 6 1,404,737 8 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 106,199 106,199 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ............................................................................................. 17 1,303,120 17 1,303,120 

10 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 154,202 154,202 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) ........................................................................... 27 720,933 27 720,933 12 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 69,658 69,658 13 MH–60S (MYP) ...................................................................................................... 18 384,792 18 384,792 14 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 69,277 69,277 15 MH–60R (MYP) ...................................................................................................... 19 656,866 5 170,000 24 826,866 

Cruiser Retention—Restore 5 helicopters ................................................... [5] [170,000 ] 

16 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 185,896 185,896 17 P–8A POSEIDON .................................................................................................... 13 2,420,755 13 2,420,755 18 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 325,679 325,679 19 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ............................................................................................. 5 861,498 5 861,498 20 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 123,179 123,179 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

22 JPATS ..................................................................................................................... 33 278,884 33 278,884 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

23 KC–130J ................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 24 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 22,995 22,995 25 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 51,124 51,124 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
372 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 SERIES ............................................................................................. 34,284 34,28442 C–2A ...................................................................................................................... 4,743 4,743 43 C–130 SERIES ....................................................................................................... 60,302 60,302 44 FEWSG ................................................................................................................... 670 670 45 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................ 26,311 26,311 46 E–6 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 158,332 158,332 47 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ......................................................................... 58,163 58,163 48 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ................................................................................. 12,421 12,421 49 T–45 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 64,488 64,488 50 POWER PLANT CHANGES ....................................................................................... 21,569 21,569 51 JPATS SERIES ........................................................................................................ 1,552 1,552 52 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS ............................................................................. 2,473 2,473 53 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 114,690 114,690 54 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ............................................................................... 96,183 96,183 56 ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 39,846 39,846 57 P–8 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 5,302 5,302 58 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION ...................................................................................... 34,127 34,127 59 RQ–7 SERIES ......................................................................................................... 49,324 49,324 60 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ........................................................................ 95,856 95,856 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
373 

61 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 1,166,430 –40,000 1,126,430 

Spares cost growth—F–35C, F–35B, E–2D ................................................ [–40,000 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

62 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 387,195 387,195 63 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 23,469 23,469 64 WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................................. 43,383 43,383 65 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................................. 3,399 3,399 66 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 32,274 32,274 67 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 1,742 1,742 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................. 191 17,129,296 5 99,000 196 17,228,296 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ................................................................................................... 1,224,683 1,224,683 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................ 5,553 5,553 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ............................................................................................................ 196 308,970 196 308,970 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................ 67 102,683 10,000 67 112,683 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

5 SIDEWINDER .......................................................................................................... 150 80,226 150 80,226 6 JSOW ...................................................................................................................... 280 127,609 10,200 280 137,809 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [10,200 ] 

7 STANDARD MISSILE ............................................................................................... 94 399,482 94 399,482 

8 RAM ....................................................................................................................... 62 66,769 62 66,769 9 HELLFIRE ............................................................................................................... 998 74,501 17,400 998 91,901 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [17,400 ] 

11 AERIAL TARGETS .................................................................................................... 61,518 61,518 12 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 3,585 3,585 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

13 ESSM ..................................................................................................................... 37 58,194 37 58,194 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

14 HARM MODS .......................................................................................................... 100 86,721 100 86,721 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

16 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 2,014 2,014 17 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON .................................................................... 21,454 21,454 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

18 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 54,945 54,945 

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 MODS ........................................................................................ 75 74,487 75 74,487 

22 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ............................................................................ 94 54,281 94 54,281 23 QUICKSTRIKE MINE ................................................................................................ 6,852 6,852 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

24 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 46,402 46,402 25 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 11,927 11,927 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

26 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 3,614 3,614 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

27 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ................................................................................. 12,594 12,594 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

28 CIWS MODS ........................................................................................................... 59,303 59,303 29 COAST GUARD WEAPONS ....................................................................................... 19,072 19,072 30 GUN MOUNT MODS ................................................................................................ 54,706 54,706 31 CRUISER MODERNIZATION WEAPONS .................................................................... 1,591 18,031 19,622 

Cruiser retention—5′′/62 Upgrade .............................................................. [18,031 ] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
375 

32 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ........................................................ 20,607 20,607 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

34 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 60,150 60,150 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................. 2,153 3,117,578 55,631 2,153 3,173,209 

SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 

1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................................... 1 608,195 1 608,195 3 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ................................................................................. 2 3,217,601 2 3,217,601 

4 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 874,878 778,000 1,652,878 

Advance procurement ................................................................................... [778,000 ] 

5 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS ................................................................................ 1 1,613,392 1 1,613,392 6 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 70,010 70,010 8 DDG 1000 .............................................................................................................. 669,222 669,222 9 DDG–51 ................................................................................................................. 2 3,048,658 2 3,048,658 

10 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 466,283 115,000 581,283 

Advance procurement ................................................................................... [115,000 ] 

11 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ........................................................................................ 4 1,784,959 4 1,784,959 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

15 JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL ................................................................................... 1 189,196 1 189,196 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

17 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 307,300 307,300 18 OUTFITTING ............................................................................................................ 309,648 309,648 20 LCAC SLEP ............................................................................................................. 2 47,930 2 47,930 21 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS .................................................... 372,573 372,573 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING & CONVERSION, NAVY ......................................... 13 13,579,845 893,000 13 14,472,845 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................. 27,024 27,024 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................... 56,575 56,575 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION .................................................................................. 21,266 21,266 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
376 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

4 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................. 34,319 34,3195 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................ 53,755 53,755 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................. 61,693 61,693 7 JATOS ..................................................................................................................... 2,776 2,776 8 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ....................................................... 7,102 7,102 

9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................ 48,320 48,320 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .......................................................... 25,544 25,544 11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ............................................................................. 41,624 41,624 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ............................................................... 65,893 65,893 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ........................................................................... 11,176 11,176 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ................................................................... 4,116 4,116 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION .................................................................................... 83,733 83,733 16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 24,645 24,645 17 40MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 16,201 16,201 

19 81MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 13,711 –10,000 3,711 

Excess to need ............................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

20 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................... 12,557 12,557

22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 7,634 –500 7,134 

Excess to need ............................................................................................. [–500 ] 

23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 27,528 27,528 24 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .......................................................................................... 93,065 93,065 25 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 2,047 –2,047 0 

Excess to need ............................................................................................. [–2,047 ] 

26 FUZE, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 5,297 5,297 

27 NON LETHALS ........................................................................................................ 1,362 1,362 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
377 

28 AMMO MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................... 4,566 4,566 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 6,010 6,010 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ....................................... 759,539 –12,547 746,992 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

1 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE ........................................................................................ 10,658 10,658 2 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE ................................................................................. 8,469 8,469 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

3 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 23,392 23,392 

PERISCOPES 

4 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP .................................................................... 53,809 53,809 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

5 DDG MOD ............................................................................................................... 452,371 452,371 6 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 16,958 16,958 7 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ............................................................. 2,492 2,492 8 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 20,707 20,707 9 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 12,046 12,046 

10 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 79,870 79,870 11 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 19,865 19,865 12 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ......................................................................................... 41,522 41,522 13 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 30,543 30,543 14 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................................ 16,257 16,257 15 DSSP EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 3,630 3,630 16 CG MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 101,000 83,972 184,972 

Cruiser retention .......................................................................................... [83,972 ] 

17 LCAC ...................................................................................................................... 16,645 16,645 18 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ............................................................................. 35,446 35,446 19 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 65,998 65,998 20 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ......................................................................... 4,359 4,359 21 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 10,218 10,218 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
378 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

22 REACTOR POWER UNITS ........................................................................................ 286,859 286,859 23 REACTOR COMPONENTS ........................................................................................ 278,503 278,503 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

24 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 8,998 8,998 

SMALL BOATS 

25 STANDARD BOATS .................................................................................................. 30,131 30,131 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

26 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 29,772 29,772 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

27 OPERATING FORCES IPE ........................................................................................ 64,346 64,346 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

28 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ......................................................................................... 154,652 154,652 29 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ..................................................... 31,319 31,319 30 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ............................................................................... 38,392 38,392 31 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES ................................................................................ 32,897 32,897 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

32 LSD MIDLIFE .......................................................................................................... 49,758 49,758 

SHIP SONARS 

34 SPQ–9B RADAR ..................................................................................................... 19,777 19,777 

35 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ............................................................. 89,201 89,201 36 SSN ACOUSTICS ..................................................................................................... 190,874 190,874 37 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 17,035 17,035 38 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ................................................................. 13,410 13,410 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

40 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................ 21,489 21,489 41 SSTD ...................................................................................................................... 10,716 10,716 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
379 

42 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 98,896 98,896 43 SURTASS ................................................................................................................ 2,774 2,774 44 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNAISSANCE FORCE ............................................... 18,428 18,428 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

45 AN/SLQ–32 ............................................................................................................ 92,270 92,270 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

46 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ........................................................................................ 107,060 1,125 108,185 

Cruiser Retention ......................................................................................... [1,125 ] 

47 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .......................................................... 914 914 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

48 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG ............................................................. 34,050 34,050 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

49 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .............................................................. 27,881 27,881 50 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) .................................................................. 448 448 51 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ...................................... 35,732 35,732 53 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ................................................. 9,533 9,533 54 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ............................................................... 60,111 60,111 55 SHALLOW WATER MCM .......................................................................................... 6,950 6,950 56 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) ....................................................................... 9,089 9,089 57 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ........................................................ 7,768 7,768 58 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................................ 3,614 3,614 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

59 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 42,911 42,911 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

60 MATCALS ................................................................................................................ 5,861 5,861 61 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................... 8,362 8,362 62 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ............................................................... 15,685 15,685 63 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 16,919 16,919 64 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................ 6,828 6,828 65 LANDING SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 7,646 7,646 66 ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 35,474 35,474 67 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .................................................................... 9,958 9,958 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
380 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

68 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONT ............................................................ 9,064 9,064 69 MARITIME INTEGRATED BROADCAST SYSTEM ....................................................... 16,026 16,026 70 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 11,886 11,886 71 DCGS-N .................................................................................................................. 11,887 11,887 72 CANES .................................................................................................................... 341,398 3,450 344,848 

Cruiser Retention ......................................................................................... [3,450 ] 

73 RADIAC .................................................................................................................. 8,083 8,083 74 CANES-INTELL ........................................................................................................ 79,427 79,427 75 GPETE .................................................................................................................... 6,083 6,083 76 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY ................................................................ 4,495 4,495 77 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ......................................................................... 4,767 4,767 78 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 81,755 81,755 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

80 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ................................................................... 56,870 1,153 58,023 

Cruiser Retention ......................................................................................... [1,153 ] 

81 MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS (MDA) ................................................................. 1,063 1,063 82 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ................................................................. 28,522 28,522 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

83 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ....................................................................... 4,183 4,183 84 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 69,025 69,025 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

85 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 49,294 49,294 86 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) ...................................................................... 184,825 1,715 186,540 

Cruiser Retention ......................................................................................... [1,715 ] 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
381 

87 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 2,180 2,180 88 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 1,354 1,354 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

90 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) .......................................................... 144,104 144,104 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

91 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP ............................................................... 12,604 12,604 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

92 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 6,680 6,680 

SONOBUOYS 

95 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ..................................................................................... 104,677 104,677 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

96 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 70,753 70,753 97 EXPEDITIONARY AIRFIELDS .................................................................................... 8,678 8,678 98 AIRCRAFT REARMING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 11,349 11,349 99 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH & RECOVERY EQUIPMENT ...................................................... 82,618 82,618 

100 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 18,339 18,339 101 DCRS/DPL .............................................................................................................. 1,414 1,414 102 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 40,475 40,475 103 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................... 61,552 61,552 104 LAMPS MK III SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 18,771 18,771 105 PORTABLE ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE AIDS ........................................................ 7,954 7,954 106 OTHER AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 10,023 10,023 107 AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS INFORMATION SYSTEM (ALIS) .......................................... 3,826 3,826 

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

108 NAVAL FIRES CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................................... 3,472 3,472 109 GUN FIRE CONTROL EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 4,528 4,528 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

110 NATO SEASPARROW ............................................................................................... 8,960 8,960 111 RAM GMLS ............................................................................................................. 1,185 1,185 112 SHIP SELF DEFENSE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 55,371 55,371 113 AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 81,614 81,614 114 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 77,767 77,767 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
382 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

115 VERTICAL LAUNCH SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 754 754 116 MARITIME INTEGRATED PLANNING SYSTEM-MIPS ................................................. 4,965 4,965 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

117 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP .................................................................... 181,049 181,049 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

118 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 71,316 71,316 119 SUBMARINE ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 4,018 4,018 120 SURFACE ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 6,465 6,465 121 ASW RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 47,930 47,930 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

122 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .............................................................. 3,579 3,579 123 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 3,125 3,125 

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

124 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE DECOY SYSTEM ...................................................................... 31,743 11,238 42,981 

Cruiser Retention ......................................................................................... [1,238 ] Program increase for NULKA decoys ............................................................ [10,000 ] 

125 SURFACE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ........................................................................ 34,174 34,174 126 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ................................................................... 23,450 23,450 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

127 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 7,158 7,158 128 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ................................................................................. 3,325 3,325 129 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP ............................................................... 8,692 8,692 130 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 14,533 14,533 131 TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 15,330 15,330 132 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 10,803 10,803 133 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 7,265 7,265 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
383 

134 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION .................................................................................... 15,252 15,252 135 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ............................................................................. 1,161 1,161 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

136 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 15,204 15,204 137 OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 6,330 6,330 138 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 6,539 6,539 139 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ................................................................... 34,804 34,804 

TRAINING DEVICES 

140 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 25,444 25,444 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

141 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 43,165 43,165 142 EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 2,251 2,251 143 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 3,148 3,148 146 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 3,502 3,502 148 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 15,696 15,696 149 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 4,344 4,344150 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 19,492 19,492 151 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 177,149 177,149 152 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................. 183,995 183,995 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

152A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 13,063 13,063 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

153 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 250,718 250,718 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ....................................................... 6,169,378 102,653 6,272,031 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ............................................................................................................ 16,089 16,089 2 LAV PIP .................................................................................................................. 186,216 –140,900 45,316 

Budget adjustment per USMC ..................................................................... [–140,900 ] 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

3 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................... 2,502 2,502 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
384 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .............................................................. 17,913 17,913 5 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ........................................................ 47,999 47,999 6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ....................................... 17,706 17,706 

OTHER SUPPORT 

7 MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................................... 48,040 48,0408 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................... 4,537 4,537 

GUIDED MISSILES 

9 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .............................................................................. 11,054 11,054 

11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ........................................................................................... 19,650 19,650 12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ............................................... 20,708 20,708 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

14 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER .................................................................................... 1,420 1,420 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

15 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 25,127 25,127 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

16 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................................... 25,822 25,822 17 MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

18 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ......................................................... 5,498 5,498 19 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 11,290 11,290 

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 SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 7,319 7,319 23 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 7,466 7,466 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
385 

25 RQ–11 UAV ............................................................................................................ 2,318 2,318 26 DCGS-MC ............................................................................................................... 18,291 18,291 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

29 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 48,084 48,084 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

30 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................ 206,708 206,708 31 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 35,190 35,190 32 RADIO SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 89,059 89,059 33 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................. 22,500 22,500 34 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ......................................................... 42,625 42,625 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

035A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 2,290 2,290 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

35 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES .................................................................... 2,877 2,877 36 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................ 13,960 13,960 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

37 5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) .................................................................................. 8,052 8,052 38 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 50,269 50,269 40 LOGISTICS VEHICLE SYSTEM REP ......................................................................... 8 37,262 8 37,262 41 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ............................................................................. 48,160 48,160 

OTHER SUPPORT 

43 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 6,705 6,705 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

44 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT ........................................................... 13,576 13,576 45 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 16,869 16,869 46 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 19,108 19,108 47 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ............................................................................. 56,253 56,253 48 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................... 13,089 13,089 49 EOD SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 73,699 73,699 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

50 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 3,510 3,510 51 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) .............................................. 11,490 11,490 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
386 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

52 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP .................................................................................. 20,659 20,659 53 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 132 132 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

54 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 31,068 31,068 55 TRAINING DEVICES ................................................................................................ 45,895 45,895 56 CONTAINER FAMILY ............................................................................................... 5,801 5,801 57 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................ 23,939 23,939 60 RAPID DEPLOYABLE KITCHEN ................................................................................ 8,365 8,365 

OTHER SUPPORT 

61 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 7,077 7,077 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

62 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 3,190 3,190 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS .................................................. 13 1,622,955 –140,900 13 1,482,055 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 ...................................................................................................................... 19 3,124,302 19 3,124,302 2 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 293,400 –64,000 229,400 

Excess advance procurement ....................................................................... [–64,000 ] 

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-back ........................................................................................... [115,000 ] 

HELICOPTERS 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
387 

15 HH–60 LOSS REPLACEMENT/RECAP ...................................................................... 60,596 60,596 17 CV–22 (MYP) ......................................................................................................... 4 294,220 4 294,220 18 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 15,000 15,000 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

19 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ........................................................................................... 5 2,498 5 2,498 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

24 TARGET DRONES .................................................................................................... 15 129,866 15 129,866 26 RQ–4 ..................................................................................................................... 75,000 105,200 180,200 

Sustain current force structure ................................................................... [105,200 ] 

28 AC–130J ................................................................................................................ 2 163,970 2 163,970 30 MQ–9 ..................................................................................................................... 24 553,530 12 158,900 36 712,430 

Additional aircraft ........................................................................................ [12] [158,900 ] 

31 RQ–4 BLOCK 40 PROC .......................................................................................... 11,654 11,654 

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 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES ................................................ 28,800 28,800 

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 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 147,995 147,995 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

41 C–5 ........................................................................................................................ 6,967 6,967 43 C–5M ..................................................................................................................... 944,819 944,819 44 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 175,800 175,800 46 C–17A .................................................................................................................... 205,079 205,079 47 C–21 ...................................................................................................................... 199 199 48 C–32A .................................................................................................................... 1,750 1,750 49 C–37A .................................................................................................................... 445 445 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
388 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 MODS ........................................................................................... 50,024 50,024 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 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 22,326 22,326 76 OTHER AIRCRAFT ................................................................................................... 18,832 18,832 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
389 

77 MQ–1 MODS .......................................................................................................... 30,861 30,861 78 MQ–9 MODS .......................................................................................................... 238,360 238,360 79 MQ–9 UAS PAYLOADS ........................................................................................... 93,461 93,461 80 CV–22 MODS ......................................................................................................... 23,881 23,881 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

81 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ............................................................................. 729,691 –1,400 728,291 

Premature request for deployment spares packages for F–35 .................. [–23,000 ] Support additional MQ–9 aircraft ............................................................... [21,600 ] 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

82 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ........................................................... 56,542 56,542 

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 RESPONSIVENESS .............................................................................. 20,731 20,731 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

98 WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................................. 89,727 89,727 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

99 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................................. 842,392 842,392 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

103A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 20,164 20,164 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................ 74 11,002,999 12 313,700 86 11,316,699 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
390 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS ................................................................................................................ 8,927 8,927 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .......................................................................................................... 118,075 118,075 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS .................................................................................................. 32,393 32,3934 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................................. 163,467 163,467 5 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .......................................................................... 3,259 101,921 3,259 101,921 

FLARE, IR MJU–7B 

6 CAD/PAD ................................................................................................................ 43,829 43,829 7 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ............................................................... 7,515 7,515 8 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 1,003 1,003 9 MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 5,321 5,321 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 5,066 5,066 

FUZES 

11 FLARES .................................................................................................................. 46,010 46,010 12 FUZES .................................................................................................................... 36,444 36,444 

SMALL ARMS 

13 SMALL ARMS ......................................................................................................... 29,223 29,223 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ............................. 3,259 599,194 3,259 599,194 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC .................................................................. 56,906 56,906 

TACTICAL 

2 JASSM .................................................................................................................... 157 240,399 157 240,399 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
391 

3 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .......................................................................................... 164 88,020 164 88,020 4 AMRAAM ................................................................................................................ 113 229,637 15,000 113 244,637 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ............................................................................... 413 47,675 413 47,6756 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ....................................................................................... 144 42,000 144 42,000 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

7 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION ........................................................... 744 744 

CLASS IV 

9 MM III MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 54,794 54,794 

10 AGM–65D MAVERICK ............................................................................................. 271 271 11 AGM–88A HARM .................................................................................................... 23,240 23,240 12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ................................................................... 13,620 13,620 13 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ....................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

14 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ............................................................................. 74,373 74,373 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

15 ADVANCED EHF ...................................................................................................... 557,205 557,205 17 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ........................................................... 36,835 36,835 19 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ....................................................................................... 2 410,294 2 410,294 20 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ......................................................................... 82,616 82,616 21 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ............................................................................ 10,554 10,554 22 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .............................................................................. 58,147 58,147 23 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ............................................................ 89,022 89,022 24 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ....................................................... 4 1,679,856 4 1,679,856 25 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 2 454,251 2 454,251 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

30 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 138,904 138,904 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

030A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 1,097,483 1,097,483 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ........................................... 999 5,491,846 15,000 999 5,506,846 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ......................................................................... 1,905 1,905 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE .................................................................................. 18,547 18,547 3 CAP VEHICLES ....................................................................................................... 932 932 4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,699 1,699 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ...................................................................... 10,850 10,850 6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 9,246 9,246 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ............................................................ 23,148 23,148 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 18,323 18,323 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU ........................................................ 1,685 1,685 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 17,014 17,014 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................. 166,559 166,55913 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) .................................................................................... 1,133 1,133 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

14 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 2,749 2,749 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 32,876 32,876 16 ADVANCE TECH SENSORS ..................................................................................... 877 877 17 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 15,295 15,295 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

18 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................ 21,984 21,984 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

19 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 30,698 30,698 20 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ....................................................................... 17,368 17,368 21 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................... 23,483 23,483 22 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST ...................................................................... 17,864 17,864 23 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................... 53,995 53,995 24 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX ........................................................................... 14,578 14,578 25 TAC SIGINT SPT ..................................................................................................... 208 208 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

27 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................. 69,743 69,743 28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ............................................................... 15,829 15,829 29 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ..................................................................... 11,023 11,023 30 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ............................................................. 64,521 64,521 31 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES .................................................................................. 18,217 18,217 32 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................................................ 11,899 11,899 33 GCSS-AF FOS ......................................................................................................... 13,920 13,920 34 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ....................................................................... 9,365 9,365 35 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ............................................................ 33,907 33,907 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

36 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 52,464 52,464 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 SENSOR PGM SPACE ................................................................. 47,135 47,135 42 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ............................................................................................ 2,031 2,031 43 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ............................................................................. 5,564 5,564 44 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ............................................................ 44,219 44,219 45 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................ 109,545 109,545 46 MILSATCOM SPACE ................................................................................................ 47,592 47,592

47 SPACE MODS SPACE ............................................................................................. 47,121 47,121 48 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 20,961 20,961 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

49 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 126,131 126,131 50 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATER .................................................................. 23,707 23,707 51 RADIO EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 12,757 12,757 52 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 10,716 10,716 53 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................. 74,528 74,528 

MODIFICATIONS 

54 COMM ELECT MODS .............................................................................................. 43,507 43,507 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

55 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ........................................................................................ 22,693 22,693 56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 30,887 30,887 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

57 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ............................................................ 2,850 2,850 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

58 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 8,387 8,387 59 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 10,358 10,358 60 PRODUCTIVITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT .................................................................... 3,473 3,473 62 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 14,471 14,471 63 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,894 1,894 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

65 DARP RC135 .......................................................................................................... 24,176 24,176 66 DCGS-AF ................................................................................................................ 142,928 142,928 68 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM .................................................................................. 479,446 479,446 69 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. ........................................................... 39,155 39,155 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

069A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 14,331,312 14,331,312 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

71 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 14,663 14,663 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................. 16,720,848 16,720,848 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ....................................................................................... 45,938 45,938 43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, INTELLIGENCE ....................................................................... 17,582 17,582 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

41 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ........................................... 6,770 6,770 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS ...................................................................................... 26,550 26,550 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

12 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................ 12,708 12,708 14 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 3,002 3,002 15 TELEPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 46,992 46,992 16 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 108,462 108,462 17 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ...................................................... 2,865 2,865 18 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .......................................................... 116,906 116,906 19 PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................. 1,827 1,827 21 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................. 10,319 10,319 

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 $5 MILLION .............................................................................. 1,486 1,486 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

44 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ........................................................................................ 21,878 21,878 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

30 THAAD .................................................................................................................... 36 460,728 12 127,000 48 587,728 

Procure 12 additional interceptors .............................................................. [12] [127,000 ] 

31 AEGIS BMD ............................................................................................................ 29 389,626 29 389,626 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

32 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ...................................................................................... 1 217,244 1 170,000 2 387,244 

Procure additional AN/TPY–2 radar ............................................................. [1] [170,000 ] 

33 RADAR SPARES ...................................................................................................... 10,177 10,177 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

05 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................... 6,147 6,147 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

27 VEHICLES ............................................................................................................... 1 50 1 50 28 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................... 3 13,096 3 13,096 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

24 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ............................................. 1,458 1,458 

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 PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 555,787 555,787 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

46 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT ...................................................... 74,832 74,832 48 MH–60 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 126,780 126,780 49 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ..................................................................................... 7 99,776 –62,800 7 36,976 

Transfer to Line 051—Mission Shift ........................................................... [–62,800 ] 

51 U–28 ...................................................................................................................... 7,530 109,400 116,930 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [46,600 ] Transfer from Line 049—Mission Shift ...................................................... [62,800 ] 

52 MH–47 CHINOOK ................................................................................................... 7 134,785 7 134,785 53 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ..................................................................... 2,062 2,062 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
397 

54 CV–22 MODIFICATION ............................................................................................ 4 139,147 4 139,147 55 MQ–1 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ...................................................................... 3,963 23,000 26,963 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [23,000 ] 

56 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ...................................................................... 3,952 35,400 39,352 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [35,400 ] 

58 STUASL0 ................................................................................................................ 12,945 12,945 59 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE ................................................................................. 73,013 73,013 60 AC/MC–130J .......................................................................................................... 51,484 51,484 62 C–130 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 25,248 25,248 63 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 5,314 5,314 

SHIPBUILDING 

64 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 23,037 23,037 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

66 ORDNANCE REPLENISHMENT ................................................................................. 113,183 113,183 67 ORDNANCE ACQUISITION ....................................................................................... 36,981 36,981 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

68 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRONICS .............................................. 99,838 3,900 103,738 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [3,900 ] 

69 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 71,428 71,428 70 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ................................................................................. 27,108 27,108 71 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ........................................... 12,767 12,767 74 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 42,348 42,348 75 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 600 600 77 TACTICAL VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 37,421 37,421 78 MISSION TRAINING AND PREPARATION SYSTEMS ................................................. 36,949 5,000 41,949 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

79 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 20,255 20,255 80 MILCON COLLATERAL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 17,590 17,590 82 AUTOMATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 66,573 66,573 83 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................ 6,549 6,549 84 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ...................................................... 32,335 32,335 85 SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS ................................................... 15,153 15,153 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

86 VISUAL AUGMENTATION LASERS AND SENSOR SYSTEMS ..................................... 33,920 33,920 87 TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 75,132 75,132 90 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 6,667 6,667 91 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ............................................................................. 217,972 25,300 243,272 

Program increase ......................................................................................... [25,300 ] 

92 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ................................................... 27,417 27,417 

CBDP 

93 INSTALLATION FORCE PROTECTION ....................................................................... 24,025 24,025 94 INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ....................................................................................... 73,720 73,720 95 DECONTAMINATION ................................................................................................ 506 506 96 JOINT BIO DEFENSE PROGRAM (MEDICAL) ............................................................ 32,597 32,597 97 COLLECTIVE PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 3,144 3,144 98 CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE ................................................................................. 164,886 164,886 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................. 94 4,187,935 13 436,200 107 4,624,135 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

01 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .......................................................... 99,477 –99,477 0 

Program reduction ........................................................................................ [–99,477 ] 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ................................. 99,477 –99,477 0 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................. 125,474 97,432,379 50 1,689,540 125,524 99,121,919 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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, ARMY .......................................... 24 486,200 24 486,200 

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, ARMY ............................................. 347 49,653 347 49,653 

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, ARMY ......................................... 15,422 15,422 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Pricing adjustments for target practice round and light-weight dual 

purpose round.

[–19,000 ] 

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 105MM, ALL TYP ................................. 29,956 29,956 14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES .................................................. 37,044 37,044 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE XM982 ......................................................... 12,300 12,300 16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ................................... 17,000 17,000 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ..................................................... 12,000 12,000 

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 AMMUNITION, ARMY ................................ 357,493 –19,000 338,493 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

2 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .................................................... 223 28,247 223 28,247 4 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ............................................... 2,050 2,050 

11 HMMWV RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM ........................................................... 2,128 271,000 2,128 271,000 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

14 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ................................... 927,400 927,400 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

52 RESERVE CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 8,000 8,000 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

61 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM .................................. 25,000 25,000 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

69 DCGS–A (MIP) ................................................................................................. 960 90,355 960 90,355 73 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRINTING AND COLLECTION ............................................ 6,516 6,516 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

75 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ....................................................... 27,646 27,646 77 FMLY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIES ...................................... 52,000 52,000 78 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES ................................ 205,209 205,209 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

92 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (FIREFINDER RADARS) ............................................... 14,600 14,600 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 SYSTEM ..................................... 2,400 2,400 112 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ............................................................. 6,400 6,400 113 SINGLE ARMY LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE (SALE) ................................................ 5,160 5,160 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

126 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) .................................................. 15,000 15,000 127 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ..................................................................... 7,193 66,100 7,193 66,100 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

135 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) ................................ 3,565 3,565 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

143 FORCE PROVIDER ............................................................................................ 1 39,700 1 39,700

145 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM .............................. 15 650 15 650 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

149 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ............................................ 13 2,119 13 2,119 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS ................................................ 4 428 4 428 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MAINT EQ) .................................................... 30 30 

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 TRAINER ............................................. 1,000 1,000 179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING ................................ 5,900 5,900 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

183 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................... 98,167 –38,000 60,167 

Rapid equipping force delayed execution rates .................................... [–38,000 ] 

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 DEV DEFEAT FUND .......................... 1,675,400 227,400 1,902,800 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .................................................................... 1 29,800 1 29,800 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

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, NAVY ........................................... 1 164,582 1 164,582 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 

9 HELLFIRE ......................................................................................................... 212 17,000 212 17,000 

10 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .................................... 50 6,500 50 6,500 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................... 262 23,500 262 23,500 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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, NAVY & MC ................................. 285,747 285,747 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

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 SYSTEM .................................................. 108,860 108,860 

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 REPLACEMENT ................................................... 32 10,466 32 10,466 41 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ...................................................................... 7,642 7,642 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

45 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 18,239 18,239 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 CORPS ............................................ 725 943,683 725 943,683 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

35 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 139,800 139,800 

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 8,00075 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, AIR FORCE .................................. 305,600 305,600 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

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 AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ....................... 1,419 116,203 1,419 116,203 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

5 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ......................................................................... 304 34,350 304 34,350 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 304 34,350 304 34,350 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

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 FORCE ....................................... 2,818,270 2,818,270 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

15 TELEPORT PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 5,260 5,260 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

045A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 126,201 126,201 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

61 MQ–8 UAV ....................................................................................................... 16,500 16,500

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

68 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRONICS ........................................ 4 151 4 151 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 SENSOR SYSTEMS ............................... 12 108 12 108 91 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ....................................................................... 31 14,758 31 14,758 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE ............................................ 143 196,349 143 196,349 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................... 100,000 –50,000 50,000 

Program reduction ................................................................................. [–50,000 ] 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ........................... 100,000 –50,000 50,000 

NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 500,000 500,000 

Program increase ................................................................................... [500,000 ] 

TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE EQUIPMENT ........................... 500,000 500,000 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ....................................................................... 15,041 9,687,241 620,400 15,041 10,307,641 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 

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) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 20,860 20,860 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 219,180 219,180 3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 80,986 80,986 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 123,045 123,045 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 444,071 444,071 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 29,041 10,250 39,291 

Advanced coating technologies for corrosion mitigation ...................................................... [10,250 ] 

6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 45,260 45,260 

7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 22,439 22,439 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 51,607 51,607 9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 15,068 15,068 

10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 49,383 49,383 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 25,999 25,999 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 23,507 23,507 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
411 

13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 69,062 69,062 14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 60,823 60,823 15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 4,465 4,46516 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 7,169 7,169 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 35,218 35,218 18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 60,300 60,300 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 53,244 53,244 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 18,850 18,850 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 19,872 19,872 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 20,095 20,095 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 28,852 28,852 24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 9,830 9,830 25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 70,693 70,693 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 17,781 17,781 27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 28,281 28,281 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 107,891 107,891 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 874,730 10,250 884,980 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 39,359 39,359 30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 69,580 69,580 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 64,215 64,215 32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 67,613 67,613 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 104,359 104,359 34 0603006A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .............................................. 4,157 4,157 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 9,856 9,856 36 0603008A ELECTRONIC WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 50,661 50,661 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 9,126 9,126 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 17,257 17,257 39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ................................................................................................................................ 9,925 9,925 40 0603105A MILITARY HIV RESEARCH ................................................................................................................. 6,984 6,984 41 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 9,716 9,716 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

42 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 3,487 3,487 43 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 2,323 2,323 44 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 21,683 21,683 45 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 71,111 71,111 46 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 10,902 10,902 47 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 180,582 180,582 48 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 27,204 27,204 49 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 6,095 6,095 50 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 37,217 37,217 51 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 13,626 13,626 52 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 28,458 28,458 53 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 25,226 25,226 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 890,722 890,722 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

54 0603305A ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................... 14,505 14,505 55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 9,876 9,876 56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 5,054 5,054 57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS—ADV DEV ..................................................... 2,725 2,725 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 30,560 30,560 59 0603653A ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) ................................................................................. 14,347 14,347 60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 10,073 10,073 61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 8,660 8,660 62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 10,715 10,715 63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 4,631 4,631 64 0603782A WARFIGHTER INFORMATION NETWORK-TACTICAL—DEM/VAL .......................................................... 278,018 278,018 65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 4,961 4,961 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
413 

66 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................................ 8,602 8,602 67 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 14,605 14,605 68 0603805A COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS ................................. 5,054 5,054 69 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 24,384 24,384 70 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 32,050 32,050 71 0603850A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE .................................................................................................. 96 96 72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 24,868 24,868 73 0604131A TRACTOR JUTE ................................................................................................................................. 59 59 75 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................ 76,039 76,039 77 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE (BUDGET ACTIVITY 4) ........................................................................ 4,043 4,043 78 0305205A ENDURANCE UAVS ........................................................................................................................... 26,196 26,196 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ......................................... 610,121 610,121 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

79 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 78,538 78,538 80 0604220A ARMED, DEPLOYABLE HELOS ........................................................................................................... 90,494 90,494 81 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 181,347 –5,000 176,347 

Program adjustment ............................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

83 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ........................................................................ 12,636 12,636 84 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 5,694 5,694 85 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 32,095 32,095 86 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 96,478 –3,400 93,078 

XM25 funding ahead of need ................................................................................................ [–3,400 ] 

87 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 3,006 3,006 89 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 5,040 5,040 90 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 3,077 3,077 91 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 9,769 9,769 92 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) ............................................................................ 13,141 13,141 99 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 32,621 32,621 

100 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 2,132 2,132 101 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 44,787 44,787 102 0604716A TERRAIN INFORMATION—ENG DEV ................................................................................................. 1,008 1,008 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
414 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

103 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 73,333 73,333 104 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 28,937 28,937 105 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 10,815 10,815 106 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 13,926 13,926 107 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 17,797 17,797 108 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 214,270 214,270 109 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ........................................................................................... 14,581 14,581 110 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 43,706 43,706 111 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 20,776 20,776 112 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 43,395 43,395 113 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 104,983 104,983 114 0604814A ARTILLERY MUNITIONS—EMD ......................................................................................................... 4,346 4,346 116 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 77,223 77,223 117 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3,486 3,486 118 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ............................................................. 9,963 9,963 119 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 20,517 20,517 120 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 51,851 51,851 121 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 167,797 167,797 122 0604869A PATRIOT/MEADS COMBINED AGGREGATE PROGRAM (CAP) ............................................................. 400,861 –400,861 

Prohibition of funds for MEADS ............................................................................................. [–400,861 ] 

123 0604870A NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL MONITORING SENSOR NETWORK .......................................................... 7,922 7,922 

124 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 51,463 51,463 125 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 158,646 158,646 126 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 128 0605456A PAC–3/MSE MISSILE ........................................................................................................................ 69,029 69,029 129 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 277,374 277,374 130 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE ............................................................................................................. 639,874 639,874 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
415 

131 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR ............................................................................................................... 47,426 47,426 132 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 72,295 72,295 133 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 4,232 4,232 134 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 13,942 13,942 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 3,286,629 –409,261 2,877,368 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

135 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 18,090 18,090 

136 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 14,034 14,034 137 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 PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 27,902 27,902 142 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 369,900 369,900 143 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 69,183 69,183 144 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 44,753 44,753 146 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 5,762 5,762 147 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 7,402 7,402 148 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 19,954 19,954 149 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 5,535 5,535 150 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 67,789 67,789 151 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 62,765 62,765 152 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 1,545 1,545 

153 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 83,422 83,422 154 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 50,820 50,820 155 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 46,763 46,763 156 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 4,601 4,601 157 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 18,524 18,524 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................ 1,153,980 1,153,980 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

159 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 143,005 143,005 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

161 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 109,978 109,978 162 0102419A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE ................................................................................................... 190,422 –19,000 171,422 

Program adjustment ............................................................................................................... [–19,000 ] 

164 0203726A ADV FIELD ARTILLERY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM .............................................................................. 32,556 32,556 165 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 253,959 253,959 166 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 68,325 68,325 167 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................... 280,247 –54,100 226,147 

Ahead of need ........................................................................................................................ [–54,100 ] 

168 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 898 898 169 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 35,180 35,180 171 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 20,733 20,733 

172 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ................................................................................................................................ 63,243 63,243 173 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 31,738 31,738 174 0208058A JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL (JHSV) .................................................................................................. 35 35 176 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 7,591 7,591 177 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 15,961 15,961 178 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 120,927 120,927 179 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 15,756 15,756 180 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 14,443 14,443 182 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 31,303 31,303 183 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 40,876 40,876 184 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 INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................. 15,248 15,248 189 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 59,908 59,908 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

189A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 4,628 4,628 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 1,669,162 –73,100 1,596,062 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................. 8,929,415 –472,111 8,457,304 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 113,690 10,000 123,690 

Increase Defense University Research Instrumentation Program .......................................... [10,000 ] 

2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 18,261 18,261 

3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 473,070 473,070 

003A 0601XXXN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 3,450 3,450 

Transfer from PE 0205658N .................................................................................................. [3,450 ] 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 605,021 13,450 618,471 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 89,189 89,189 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 143,301 143,301 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 46,528 46,528 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 41,696 41,696 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 44,127 44,127 9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 78,228 78,228 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 49,635 49,635 

11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 5,973 5,973 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 96,814 96,814 13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 162,417 162,417 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 32,394 32,394 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 790,302 790,302 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 56,543 56,543 16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 18,616 18,616 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

19 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 54,858 54,858 20 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 130,598 130,598 21 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 11,706 11,706 22 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 256,382 256,382 23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 3,880 3,880 25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 51,819 51,819 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 584,402 584,402 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

28 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 34,085 34,085 29 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 8,783 8,783 30 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 3,773 3,773 31 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 24,512 24,512 32 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 8,090 8,090 33 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 5,301 5,301 34 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 1,506 1,506 35 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 190,622 190,622 36 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 93,346 93,346 37 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 108,871 108,871 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 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 555,123 374,400 929,523 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [374,400 ] 

45 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9,368 9,368 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

46 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 24,609 24,609 47 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 13,710 13,710 48 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 249,748 249,748 49 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 29,897 29,897 50 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 509,988 509,988 51 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 429,420 429,420 52 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 56,551 56,551 53 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 7,342 7,342 54 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 95,182 95,182 55 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 10,496 10,496 56 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 52,331 52,331 57 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 56,512 56,512 58 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 7,029 7,029 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 PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 3,811 3,811 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 DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 9,389 9,389 71 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 16,132 16,132 72 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 44,994 44,994 73 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 137,369 137,369 76 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 73,934 73,934 77 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................. 711 711 78 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) ................................... 71,300 71,300 79 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 5,654 5,654 80 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 31,549 31,549 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

82 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 86,801 86,801 83 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 44,500 44,500 84 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 13,172 13,172 86 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 643 643 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ......................................... 4,335,297 374,400 4,709,697 

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 UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 6,866 6,866 91 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 4,060 4,060 92 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 3,451 3,451 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 DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 2,717 2,717 

100 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 13,009 13,009 101 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 51,304 51,304 102 0604273N VH–71A EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 61,163 61,163 103 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 187,024 187,024 104 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 337,480 337,480 105 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 260,616 250,000 510,616 

Cruiser Retention .................................................................................................................... [250,000 ] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

106 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 824 824 107 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 31,064 31,064 108 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 63,891 63,891 109 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 73,246 73,246 110 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION ............. 10,568 10,568 111 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 39,974 39,974 112 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM ....... 122,481 –75,000 47,481 

Transfer from RDN 112 to RDN 167 ................................................................................. [–75,000 ] 

113 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 255,516 255,516 114 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 82,620 82,620 115 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 5,633 5,633 116 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 55,826 55,826 117 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER CONVERSION ................................................................................ 918 918 118 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 165,230 165,230 119 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 49,141 49,141 120 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 196,737 196,737 121 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3,889 3,889 122 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 8,335 8,335 123 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 49,818 49,818 124 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 10,099 10,099 125 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 7,348 7,348 126 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 5,518 5,518 127 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 87,662 87,662 128 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 64,079 64,079 129 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 151,489 1,125 152,614 

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 (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 737,149 737,149 134 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 743,926 743,926 135 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 12,143 12,143 136 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 72,209 72,209 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

138 0605212N CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 606,204 606,204 140 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 421,102 421,102 141 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 124,655 124,655 142 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM—MIP ................................................................................................ 1,170 1,170 144 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 23,255 23,255 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 5,747,232 176,125 5,923,357 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

146 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 30,790 30,790 

147 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 59,221 59,221 148 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 35,894 35,894 149 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 7,573 7,573 150 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 20,963 20,963 151 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 46,856 46,856 153 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 796 796 154 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 32,782 32,782 155 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 3,306 3,306 156 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 70,302 70,302 157 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 144,033 144,033 158 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 342,298 342,298 159 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 16,399 16,399 160 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 4,579 4,579 161 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 8,000 8,000 162 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 18,490 18,490 163 0305885N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 2,795 2,795 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................ 845,077 845,077 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
423 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

167 0604402N UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE (UCAV) ADVANCED COMPONENT AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT. 142,282 75,000 217,282 

Transfer from RDN 112 to RDN 167 ...................................................................................... [75,000 ]

170 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 105,892 105,892 171 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 34,729 34,729 172 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 1,434 1,434 173 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 19,208 19,208 174 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION (RTT) ........................................................................................... 25,566 25,566 175 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 188,299 188,299 176 0204152N E–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 8,610 8,610 177 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ...................................................................................... 15,695 15,695 178 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 4,171 4,171 179 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 11,265 11,265180 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 45,922 45,922 181 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 8,435 8,435 182 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 75,088 75,088 183 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 20,229 20,229 184 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ...................................................................................................... 1,756 1,756 185 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 19,843 19,843 186 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 11,477 11,477 187 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ...................................................................................................................... 118,818 118,818 188 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 27,342 27,342 189 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 28,717 28,717 190 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 89,157 89,157 191 0205658N NAVY SCIENCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 3,450 –3,450 

Transfer to Science and Technology (RDN 003A) .................................................................. [–3,450 ] 

192 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 86,435 86,435 

193 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 219,054 219,054 194 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 181,693 181,693 195 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 58,393 58,393 196 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 22,966 22,966 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

197 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 21,107 21,107 198 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 2,857 2,857 199 0208058N JOINT HIGH SPEED VESSEL (JHSV) .................................................................................................. 1,932 1,932 204 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 188,482 188,482 205 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 16,749 16,749206 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 26,307 26,307 207 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 500 500 210 0305149N COBRA JUDY .................................................................................................................................... 17,091 17,091 211 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC) ................................................... 810 810 212 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 8,617 8,617 213 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 9,066 9,066 215 0305207N MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 30,654 30,654 216 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 25,917 25,917 217 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 14,676 14,676 218 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 UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 9,734 9,734 225 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 22,343 22,343 226 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 5,908 5,908 227 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 27,391 27,391 229 0708011N INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................ 54,879 54,879 230 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,151,159 200,000 1,351,159 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [200,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 3,975,546 271,550 4,247,096 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................... 16,882,877 835,525 17,718,402 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 361,787 361,787 

2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 141,153 141,153 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 13,094 13,094 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 516,034 516,034 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 114,166 114,166 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 120,719 120,719 6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 89,319 89,319 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 TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 106,196 106,196 12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 104,362 104,362 13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 38,557 38,557 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 1,109,053 1,109,053 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 47,890 10,000 57,890 

Increase Materials Affordability Initiative program ............................................................... [10,000 ] 

15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 6,565 6,565 16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 37,657 37,657 17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 81,376 81,376 18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 151,152 151,152 19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 32,941 32,941 20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 64,557 64,557 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 29,256 29,256 22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 21,523 21,523 23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 36,352 36,352 24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 19,004 19,004 25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 37,045 37,045 26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 31,419 31,419 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 596,737 10,000 606,737 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 3,866 3,866 29 0603287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 3,704 3,704 30 0603430F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 229,171 –1,500 227,671 

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 TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 32,243 32,243 34 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 4,507 4,507 35 0603791F INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATIVE R&D .................................................................................... 652 652 36 0603830F SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM (SPP) .............................................................................................. 10,429 10,429 37 0603850F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE—DEM/VAL ............................................................................... 19,938 19,938 38 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 71,181 71,181 39 0603854F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM RDT&E (SPACE) ................................................................................. 12,027 12,027 40 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL ................................................................................................ 2,054 2,054 41 0603860F JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 57,975 57,975 42 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE ....................................................................................................................... 291,742 291,742 43 0604283F BATTLE MGMT COM & CTRL SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 114,417 114,417 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
427 

44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 2,576 2,576 45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 16,711 16,711 47 0604337F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 16,343 16,343 48 0604422F WEATHER SATELLITE FOLLOW-ON .................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 50 0604635F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 9,423 9,423 54 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 25,000 25,000 

Operationally Responsive Space ............................................................................................. [25,000 ] 

55 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 37,558 –3,000 34,558 

Project decrease ..................................................................................................................... [–3,000 ] 

56 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 96,840 96,840 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ......................................... 1,181,177 18,500 1,199,677 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

58 0603840F GLOBAL BROADCAST SERVICE (GBS) .............................................................................................. 14,652 14,652 59 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 25,713 25,713 60 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 6,583 6,583 61 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 1,975 1,975 62 0604280F JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ..................................................................................................................... 2,594 2,594 63 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 24,534 24,534 64 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 51 51 65 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 143,000 143,000 66 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 28,797 28,797 67 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 267,252 267,252 68 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 4,118 4,118 69 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 448,594 –2,000 446,594 

Project decrease ..................................................................................................................... [–2,000 ] 

70 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 9,951 9,951 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
428 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

77 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 1,210,306 1,210,306 78 0604851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—EMD ............................................................................... 135,437 135,437 79 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 7,980 7,980 80 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 2,004 2,004 81 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 73,512 73,512 82 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ........................................................................................ 140,100 140,100 83 0605221F NEXT GENERATION AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT ........................................................................... 1,815,588 1,815,588 84 0605229F CSAR HH–60 RECAPITALIZATION ..................................................................................................... 123,210 123,210 85 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 19,039 19,039 86 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 281,056 281,056 87 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 80,200 80,200 89 0207604F READINESS TRAINING RANGES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE .................................................. 310 310 90 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 14,861 14,861 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 C3 (SLC3S) ......................................................................................... 1,960 1,960 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 4,966,724 23,000 4,989,724 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

95 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 22,812 22,812 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 & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 16,197 16,197 

100 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 722,071 722,071 101 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 16,200 16,200 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
429 

102 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 10,051 34,950 45,001 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [34,950 ] 

103 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 42,597 42,597 104 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 27,301 27,301 

105 0606323F MULTI-SERVICE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INITIATIVE ........................................................................ 13,964 13,964 106 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 203,766 203,766 107 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 42,430 42,430 108 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,294 1,294 111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 3,851 3,851 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................ 1,190,349 34,950 1,225,299 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

112 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 371,595 –1,500 370,095 

Project decrease ..................................................................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

114 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF–IPPS) ............................................................. 91,697 91,697 115 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 17,037 17,037 117 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 53,208 53,208 118 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 431 431 119 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 16,265 16,265 120 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 35,970 35,970 121 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................. 30,889 30,889 122 0101314F NIGHT FIST—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................................................. 10 10 124 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................ 5,609 5,609 126 0203761F WARFIGHTER RAPID ACQUISITION PROCESS (WRAP) RAPID TRANSITION FUND ............................. 15,098 15,098 127 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 147,971 147,971 128 0207040F MULTI-PLATFORM ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 49,848 49,848 129 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 SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 13,683 13,683 133 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 371,667 371,667 134 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 8,117 8,117 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
430 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

135 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 8,234 8,234 136 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 87,041 87,041 137 0207170F JOINT HELMET MOUNTED CUEING SYSTEM (JHMCS) ....................................................................... 1,472 1,472 138 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY .................................................................................................. 2,095 2,095 139 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 1,119 1,119 140 0207247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 63,853 63,853 141 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 1,063 1,063 142 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 12,094 12,094 143 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 187,984 187,984 145 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 7,950 7,950 146 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 76,315 76,315 147 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 8,653 8,653 148 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ................................................................... 65,200 65,200 149 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 5,767 5,767 152 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 5,756 5,756 154 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 16,226 16,226 156 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ............................................................................................................. 1,633 1,633 157 0207449F COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) CONSTELLATION ............................................................................. 18,086 18,086 158 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 15,690 15,690 159 0207581F JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM (JSTARS) ................................................... 24,241 24,241 160 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 22,654 22,654 161 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 15,501 15,501 162 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 5,699 5,699 163 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 4,425 4,425 164 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 69,377 69,377 165 0208021F INFORMATION WARFARE SUPPORT .................................................................................................. 7,159 7,159 166 0208059F CYBER COMMAND ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................... 66,888 66,888 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
431 

174 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 12,056 12,056 175 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 4,159 4,159 176 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 20,124 20,124 177 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 69,133 69,133 178 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 6,512 6,512 179 0303150F GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 4,316 4,316 180 0303601F MILSATCOM TERMINALS ................................................................................................................... 107,237 107,237 182 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 129,106 129,106 185 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,461 4,461 186 0305103F CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 2,055 2,055 187 0305105F DOD CYBER CRIME CENTER ............................................................................................................ 285 285 188 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 33,773 33,773 189 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 29,048 29,048 190 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 43,187 43,187191 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 50,496 50,496 194 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 354 354 195 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 4,000 4,000 196 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 342 342 198 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 29,621 29,621 199 0305165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL SEGMENTS) ................................ 14,335 14,335 201 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 3,680 3,680 202 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER ........................................................................... 2,430 2,430 203 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 8,760 8,760 205 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 23,644 23,644 206 0305205F ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .................................................................................... 21,000 21,000 207 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 96,735 96,735 208 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 13,316 13,316 209 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 63,501 63,501 210 0305219F MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV .................................................................................................................. 9,122 9,122 211 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 236,265 236,265 212 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 7,367 7,367 213 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK (CDL) .............................................................................................................. 38,094 38,094 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
432 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

214 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 210,109 210,109 215 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 24,500 24,500 216 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 INFORMATION WARFARE ..................................................................... 13,357 13,357 220 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 64,965 64,965 221 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 19,586 19,586 223 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ..................................................................................................... 1,175 1,175 224 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON .............................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 225 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 35,115 35,115 226 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 99,225 99,225 227 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 30,652 30,652 228 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 7,758 7,758 229 0401139F LIGHT MOBILITY AIRCRAFT (LIMA) ................................................................................................... 100 100 231 0401219F KC–10S ............................................................................................................................................ 24,022 24,022 232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ...................................................................................................... 7,471 7,471 234 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS/COMBAT CONTROL .............................................................................................. 4,984 4,984 235 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,588 1,588 236 0708012F LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 577 577 237 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 119,327 119,327 238 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 15,873 15,873 240 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 349 349 242 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 117 117 243 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 2,018 2,018 244 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 1,561 1,561 245 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 7,634 7,634 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
433 

246 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,175 1,175 247 0901279F FACILITIES OPERATION—ADMINISTRATIVE ...................................................................................... 3,491 3,491 248 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 100,160 100,160 

249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 11,172,183 11,172,183 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 15,867,972 –1,500 15,866,472 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................... 25,428,046 84,950 25,512,996 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ................................................................................................. 45,071 45,071 

2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 309,051 309,051 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 19,405 19,405 4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 39,676 39,676 5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 87,979 87,979 6 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 50,566 50,566 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 551,748 551,748 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

7 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 20,615 20,615 

8 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 110,900 110,900 9 0602228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (HBCU) SCIENCE ......................................... 10,000 10,000 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

10 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 36,826 36,826 11 0602250D8Z SYSTEMS 2020 APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................................................................ 7,898 7,898 12 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 392,421 392,421 13 0602304E COGNITIVE COMPUTING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 30,424 30,424 15 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 19,236 19,236 16 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 223,269 223,269 17 0602663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 13,753 13,753 18 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 18,985 18,985 19 0602670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) APPLIED RESEARCH ...................... 6,771 6,771 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
434 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

20 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 233,209 233,209 21 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 166,067 166,067 22 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 222,416 222,416 23 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................... 172,352 172,352 24 1160401BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 28,739 28,739 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 1,703,881 10,000 1,713,881 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) 

25 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 25,612 25,612 26 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 26,324 26,324 27 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 77,144 77,144 28 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ...................... 275,022 275,022 29 0603175C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 79,975 79,975 31 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 20,032 20,032 32 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY ........................ 3,892 3,892 33 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 36,685 36,685 34 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 174,316 –25,000 149,316 

Program decrease ................................................................................................................... [–25,000 ] 

35 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 159,704 159,704 36 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 234,280 234,280 37 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 6,983 6,983 38 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 158,263 158,263 39 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 25,393 25,393 40 0603663D8Z DATA TO DECISIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 13,754 13,754 

42 0603668D8Z CYBER SECURITY ADVANCED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 19,935 19,935 43 0603670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............ 8,235 8,235 44 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 21,966 21,966 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
435 

45 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 24,662 24,662 47 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 24,605 24,605 48 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 30,678 30,678 49 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 65,282 65,282 50 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 72,234 10,000 82,234 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

51 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 8,403 8,403 52 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 111,008 111,008 54 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 237,859 –25,000 212,859 

Program reduction .................................................................................................................. [–25,000 ] 

55 0603765E CLASSIFIED DARPA PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 56 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 236,883 236,883 57 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 299,438 299,438 58 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 12,195 12,195

59 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 30,036 30,036 60 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 107,002 107,002 62 0603828J JOINT EXPERIMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 21,230 21,230 63 0603832D8Z DOD MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE ............................................................... 47,433 47,433 64 0603901C DIRECTED ENERGY RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 46,944 30,000 76,944 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

65 0603902C NEXT GENERATION AEGIS MISSILE .................................................................................................. 224,077 224,077 66 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 92,602 92,602 68 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 26,244 26,244 69 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 53,946 53,946 70 1160402BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 45,317 45,317 71 1160422BB AVIATION ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 861 861 72 1160472BB SOF INFORMATION AND BROADCAST SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................... 4,959 4,959 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) ........................................................ 3,194,413 –10,000 3,184,413 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

73 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 33,234 33,234 74 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 21,023 21,023 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
436 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

75 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 94,624 94,624 77 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................ 16,958 16,958 78 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 75,941 75,941 79 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 316,929 316,929 80 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 903,172 460,000 1,363,172 

East Coast site planning and development, and EIS work .................................................. [103,000 ] Program increase .................................................................................................................... [357,000 ] 

81 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 179,023 179,023 82 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 347,012 347,012 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 & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 51,313 51,313 88 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 6,912 6,912 89 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT & COMMUNICATION. 366,552 366,552 90 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 55,550 55,550 91 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 63,043 63,043 92 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 11,371 11,371 93 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 9,730 9,730 94 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 99,836 168,000 267,836 

Increase to DSWS, ASIP, Arrow-3 cooperative programs ....................................................... [168,000 ] 

95 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 454,400 454,400 96 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 435,747 435,747 97 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 13,231 13,231 98 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 11,398 11,398 99 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 3,283 3,283 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
437 

100 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT 12,368 12,368 101 0604670D8Z HUMAN, SOCIAL AND CULTURE BEHAVIOR MODELING (HSCB) RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING ..... 5,131 5,131 104 0604787J JOINT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .......................................................................................................... 3,273 3,273 106 0604828J JOINT FIRES INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY TEAM .............................................................. 7,364 7,364 107 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 276,338 276,338 108 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 420,630 420,630 109 0604883C PRECISION TRACKING SPACE SENSOR RDT&E ................................................................................ 297,375 –247,375 50,000 

Project decrease to support technology development ........................................................... [–247,375 ] 

111 0604886C ADVANCED REMOTE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY (ARST) ........................................................................ 58,742 58,742 

113 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 3,158 3,158 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ......................................... 6,282,166 380,625 6,662,791 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION (SDD) 

115 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 6,817 6,817 116 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 110,383 110,383 

117 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 311,071 311,071 119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS–JPO) ........................................................ 25,787 25,787 120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 20,688 20,688 121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES .............................................................. 5,749 5,749 122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 12,699 12,699 125 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 387 387 126 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 1,859 1,859 127 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 7,010 7,010 128 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 133,104 133,104 

129 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION .................................................................................................... 25,269 25,269 131 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 10,238 10,238 132 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 19,670 19,670 133 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 3,556 3,556 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION (SDD) .............................................. 694,287 694,287 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

135 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 6,383 6,383 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
438 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

136 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 3,845 3,845 137 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 144,109 144,109 138 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 2,419 2,419 139 0604943D8Z THERMAL VICAR ............................................................................................................................... 8,214 8,214 140 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 19,380 19,380 141 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 32,266 32,266 142 0605110D8Z USD(A&T)—CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ................................................................................ 840 840 143 0605117D8Z FOREIGN MATERIEL ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION ..................................................................... 56,012 56,012 144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 55,508 55,508 146 0605130D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 18,174 18,174 147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 43,195 43,195 148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 6,457 6,457 149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 4,901 4,901 150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 6,307 6,307 151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 6,601 6,601 152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 92,849 92,849 159 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (S 1,857 1,857 160 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 12,056 12,056 162 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 55,454 55,454 163 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 16,364 16,364 164 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 15,110 15,110 166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 69,767 69,767 167 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 4,454 4,454 169 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 2,637 2,637 174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 8,238 8,238 176 0305103E CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 1,801 1,801 177 0305193D8Z INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) ......................................................... 16,041 16,041 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
439 

180 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2) ................................ 77,475 77,475 182 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 34,855 34,855 183 0901598D8W MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS WHS ............................................................................................... 104 104 

184A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 64,255 64,255 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................ 887,928 887,928 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

185 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 8,866 8,866 

186 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MGMT 3,238 3,238 187 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 288 288 188 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 14,745 14,745 190 0607828J JOINT INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ................................................................................... 5,013 5,013 191 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 3,922 3,922 192 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 72,574 72,574 194 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ........................................................................... 6,214 6,214 201 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................ 499 499 

202 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 14,498 14,498 203 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ............................................................................................. 26,164 26,164 204 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 12,931 12,931 205 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) ............................................................................................... 6,296 6,296 206 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 30,948 30,948 207 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 11,780 11,780 208 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 191,452 50,000 241,452 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

211 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 36,575 10,000 46,575 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

212 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 24,278 24,278 213 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ................................................................................. 2,924 2,924 214 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 1,294 1,294 215 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 6,050 6,050 217 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES ................................................................................. 17,058 17,058 222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 4,189 4,189 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
440 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

223 0305125D8Z CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (CIP) .............................................................................. 10,462 10,462 227 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 6,360 6,360 229 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 21,190 21,190 232 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 7,114 600 7,714 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [600 ] 

235 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 3,247 3,247 237 0305219BB MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV .................................................................................................................. 1,355 1,355 240 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,303 2,303 

241 0305600D8Z INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES .............................................. 1,478 1,478249 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................ 27,044 27,044 250 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 4,711 4,711 251 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJCS ................................................................................................................ 4,100 4,100 253 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 3,002 3,002 257 1160403BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS AVIATION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................... 97,267 97,267 258 1160404BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS TACTICAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 821 821 259 1160405BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ...................................................... 25,935 25,935 260 1160408BB SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................................ 51,700 51,700 261 1160421BB SPECIAL OPERATIONS CV–22 DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 1,822 1,822 262 1160427BB MISSION TRAINING AND PREPARATION SYSTEMS (MTPS) ............................................................... 10,131 10,131 263 1160429BB AC/MC–130J ..................................................................................................................................... 19,647 19,647 264 1160474BB SOF COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS ................................................. 2,225 2,225 265 1160476BB SOF TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 3,036 3,036 266 1160477BB SOF WEAPONS SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 1,511 1,511 267 1160478BB SOF SOLDIER PROTECTION AND SURVIVAL SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 4,263 4,263 268 1160479BB SOF VISUAL AUGMENTATION, LASERS AND SENSOR SYSTEMS ....................................................... 4,448 4,448 269 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 11,325 11,325 270 1160481BB SOF MUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 1,515 1,515 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
441 

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 SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 7,620 7,620 276 1160490BB SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ........................................................................ 16,386 16,386 

276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,754,516 19,900 3,774,416 

Program increases .................................................................................................................. [19,900 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 4,667,738 115,500 4,783,238 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................... 17,982,161 496,125 18,478,286 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 72,501 35,000 107,501 

Program increase for DOT&E cyber—range operations ........................................................ [25,000 ] Program increase for DOT&E cyber—threat development and assessment ........................ [10,000 ] 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 49,201 49,201 

3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 63,566 63,566 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................ 185,268 35,000 220,268 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................... 185,268 35,000 220,268 TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................... 69,407,767 979,489 70,387,256 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
442 

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) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................... 19,860 19,860 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 19,860 19,860 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ....................................................... 19,860 19,860 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

56 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 4,600 4,600 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 4,600 4,600 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

131 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2,173 2,173 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 2,173 2,173 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

160 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ................................................................ 5,200 5,200 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .................................................................................... 5,200 5,200 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

195 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 6,762 6,762 221 0305233N RQ–7 UAV ............................................................................................................................................. 7,600 7,600 

230A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 33,784 33,784 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 48,146 48,146 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
443 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ........................................................ 60,119 60,119 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

249A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 53,150 53,150 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 53,150 53,150 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ............................................................ 53,150 53,150 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

9 0602228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (HBCU) SCIENCE .............................................. 10,000 10,000 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [10,000] 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) 

27 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ................................................................................ 25,000 25,000 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [25,000] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) ............................................................. 25,000 25,000 

94 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 680,000 680,000 

Iron Dome .................................................................................................................................... [680,000] 

102 0604775D8Z DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 200,000 200,000 

Program increase ........................................................................................................................ [200,000] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 880,000 880,000 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

239 0305231BB MQ–8 UAV ............................................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 

276A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 107,387 107,387 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 112,387 112,387 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ........................................................... 112,387 915,000 1,027,387 TOTAL RDT&E .......................................................................................................................... 245,516 915,000 1,160,516 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
444 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House 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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 3,041,074 193,600 3,234,674 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
445 

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 ] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 Certification Training .................................................................................. [5,000 ] Historical unobligated balances .............................................................................................................................. [–289,200 ] Overestimate of Foreign Currency Fluctuation Costs .............................................................................................. [–66,500 ] 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
448 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 1,066,329 –479,000 587,329 

Cruiser Retention ..................................................................................................................................................... [–9,000 ] Fiscal year 2013 portion of USS ENTERPRISE Inactivation Costs .......................................................................... [–470,000 ] 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
449 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
450 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
451 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 1,353,987 215,500 1,569,487 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 309,699 309,699 190 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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 336,433 336,433 240 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 842,441 842,441 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 482,634 482,634 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
452 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 303,610 303,610 400 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 ] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
453 

Overestimate of Foreign Currency Fluctuation Costs .............................................................................................. [–32,000 ] 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
454 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 Initiative ....................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

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 Costs .............................................................................................. [–9,700 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS .............................................................................................................. –107,700 –107,700 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
455 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 287,399 20,700 308,099 

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 Certification Training .................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

Deny request of increase for technicians ............................................................................................................... [–3,900 ] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
456 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
457 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 71,564 6,700 78,264 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
458 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 688,189 49,400 737,589 

Restoration and Modernization of Facilities ........................................................................................................... [49,400 ] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
459 

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 Certification Training .................................................................................. [5,000 ] 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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 270,709 24,700 295,409 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
460 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
461 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS 

10 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE .......................................................................................... 13,516 13,516 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
462 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House 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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 250,000 250,000 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 12,524,137 –129,000 12,395,137 

Reduction to Task Force for Business and Stability Operations ............................................................................ [–129,000 ] 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
463 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
464 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
465 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 155,954 155,954 60 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 342,226 342,226 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
466 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 4,431 4,431 190 BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,256 9,256 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................ 3,799,350 3,799,350 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

230 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 424 424 

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 & MODERNIZATION .......................................................................................... 47,200 47,200 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
467 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
468 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
469 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
470 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
471 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
472 

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 training ............................................................................... 2,000 Basic allowance for housing for members of the National Guard (Section 603) ............................................. 6,000 Non-medical attendant travel (Section 621) ...................................................................................................... 2,000 Reserve Components administrative absence (Section 604) ............................................................................. 2,000 Restore accrual payments to the Medicare eligible health care trust fund ..................................................... 672,000 Retain 128 Air National Guard AGRs for two air sovereignty alert locations ................................................... 8,300 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
473 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
474 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
475 

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 Standard enrollment fees and deductibles for TRICARE 

Standard ........................................................................................................................................................... [273,000 ] 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
476 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ......................................................................................... 889,545 889,545 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 109,818 109,818 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ..................................................................... 999,363 999,363 

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, Army ....................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

TOTAL CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY ....................................................................................................... 45,800 25,000 70,800 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................................................................................. 37,273,808 254,900 37,528,708 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
477 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
478 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................................................... 469,025 469,025 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ..................................................................... 469,025 469,025 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
479 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

Army ALASKA FORT WAINWRIGHT MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE ......................................... 10,400 10,400 Army ALASKA JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE ......................................... 7,900 7,900 

Army CALIFORNIA CONCORD ENGINEERING/HOUSING MAINTENANCE SHOP ..................... 3,100 3,100 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 TRAINING RANGE ......................... 18,000 18,000 Army DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FORT MCNAIR VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING, INSTALLATION ...................... 7,200 7,200 Army GEORGIA FORT BENNING GROUND SOURCE HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEM ...................... 16,000 16,000 Army GEORGIA FORT GORDON GROUND SOURCE HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEM ...................... 12,200 12,200 Army GEORGIA FORT GORDON MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE ......................................... 4,000 4,000 Army GEORGIA FORT GORDON MULTIPURPOSE MACHINE GUN RANGE ............................... 7,100 7,100 Army GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA AUTOMATED COMBAT PISTOL QUAL CRSE .......................... 3,650 3,650 Army GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA DIGITAL MULTIPURPOSE TRAINING RANGE ......................... 22,000 22,000 Army GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE COMPLEX .............................. 24,000 24,000 Army HAWAII POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA AUTOMATED INFANTRY PLATOON BATTLE COURSE ............. 29,000 29,000 Army HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS BARRACKS ........................................................................... 55,000 55,000

Army HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS BARRACKS ........................................................................... 41,000 41,000Army HAWAII WHEELER ARMY AIR FIELD COMBAT AVIATION BRIGADE BARRACKS ............................. 85,000 85,000 Army ITALY CAMP EDERLE BARRACKS ........................................................................... 36,000 36,000 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
480 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

Army ITALY VICENZA SIMULATIONS CENTER ......................................................... 32,000 32,000 Army JAPAN OKINAWA SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY .............................. 78,000 78,000 Army JAPAN SAGAMI VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP ............................................ 18,000 18,000 Army KANSAS FORT RILEY, KANSAS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE COMPLEX .............................. 12,200 12,200 Army KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY BATTALION HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX ............................... 55,000 55,000 Army KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY LIVE FIRE EXERCISE SHOOTHOUSE ..................................... 3,800 3,800 Army KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE COMPLEX .............................. 23,000 23,000 Army KENTUCKY FORT KNOX AUTOMATED INFANTRY SQUAD BATTLE COURSE ................ 6,000 6,000 Army KOREA CAMP HUMPHREYS BATTALION HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX ............................... 45,000 45,000 Army KWAJALEIN ATOLL KWAJALEIN ATOLL PIER .................................................................................... 0 0 Army MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD BATTALION COMPLEX FACILITIES ........................................ 26,000 26,000 Army MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD TRAINEE BARRACKS COMPLEX 3, PH 2 .............................. 58,000 58,000 Army MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP ............................................ 39,000 39,000 Army NEW JERSEY JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST FLIGHT EQUIPMENT COMPLEX ............................................. 47,000 47,000 

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 COMPLEX .............................. 26,000 26,000 Army OKLAHOMA FORT SILL MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE ......................................... 4,900 4,900 Army SOUTH CAROLINA FORT JACKSON TRAINEE BARRACKS COMPLEX 2, PH 2 .............................. 24,000 24,000 Army TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI AIRCRAFT COMPONENT MAINTENANCE SHOP ..................... 13,200 13,200 Army TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI AIRCRAFT PAINT SHOP ........................................................ 24,000 24,000 Army TEXAS FORT BLISS MULTIPURPOSE MACHINE GUN RANGE ............................... 7,200 7,200 Army TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS MODIFIED RECORD FIRE RANGE ......................................... 4,200 4,200 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
481 

Army TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS TRAINING AIDS CENTER ...................................................... 25,000 25,000 Army TEXAS FORT HOOD, TEXAS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE COMPLEX .............................. 22,000 22,000 Army TEXAS JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO BARRACKS ........................................................................... 21,000 21,000 Army VIRGINIA ARLINGTON CEMETERY EXPANSION MILLENNIUM SITE .......................... 84,000 84,000 Army VIRGINIA FORT BELVOIR SECURE ADMIN/OPERATIONS FACILITY ............................... 94,000 94,000 Army VIRGINIA FORT LEE ADV INDIVIDUAL TRAINING BARRACKS CPLX, PH2 ............. 81,000 81,000 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 LOCA- TIONS HOST NATION SUPPORT FY 13 ............................................ 34,000 34,000 

Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MINOR CONSTRUCTION FY 13 ............................................ 25,000 25,000 Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN FY13 ............................................. 65,173 65,173 

Total Military Construction, Army 1,923,323 0 1,923,323 

Navy ARIZONA YUMA COMBAT AIRCRAFT LOADING APRON .................................. 15,985 15,985 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 OPS COMPLEX ................. 78,897 78,897 Navy CALIFORNIA CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA MV22 AVIATION SIMULATOR BUILDING ............................... 4,139 4,139 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 FACILITY .............................. 2,478 2,478 Navy CALIFORNIA LEMOORE BAMS MAINTENANCE TRAINING FACILITY ........................... 14,843 –14,843 0 Navy CALIFORNIA MIRAMAR HANGAR 5 RENOVATIONS & ADDITION ............................... 27,897 27,897 Navy CALIFORNIA POINT MUGU BAMS MAINTENANCE TRAINING FACILITY ........................... 0 12,790 12,790 Navy CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO ENTRY CONTROL POINT (GATE FIVE) .................................. 11,752 11,752 Navy CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO LCS TRAINING FACILITY ...................................................... 59,436 59,436 Navy CALIFORNIA SEAL BEACH STRATEGIC SYSTEMS WEAPONS EVAL. TEST LAB ............... 30,594 30,594 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
482 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

Navy CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA LAND EXPANSION PHASE 2 ................................................. 47,270 47,270 Navy DIEGO GARCIA DIEGO GARCIA COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE ................................. 1,691 1,691 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI CONTAINERIZED LIVING AND WORK UNITS ......................... 7,510 –7,510 0 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI FITNESS CENTER ................................................................. 26,960 –26,960 0 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI GALLEY ADDITION AND WAREHOUSE .................................. 22,220 –22,220 0 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI JOINT HQ/JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER FACILITY ................. 42,730 –42,730 0 Navy FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE BAMS MISSION CONTROL COMPLEX ................................... 21,980 21,980 Navy GREECE SOUDA BAY AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON EXPANSION .............................. 20,493 20,493 Navy GREECE SOUDA BAY INTERMODAL ACCESS ROAD ............................................... 4,630 4,630 Navy GUAM JOINT REGION MARIANAS NORTH RAMP PARKING (ANDERSEN AFB)—INC 2 ............. 25,904 25,904 Navy HAWAII KANEOHE BAY AIRCRAFT STAGING AREA .................................................... 14,680 14,680 Navy HAWAII KANEOHE BAY MV–22 HANGAR AND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................. 82,630 82,630 Navy JAPAN IWAKUNI MAINTENANCE HANGAR IMPROVEMENTS ............................ 5,722 5,722 Navy JAPAN IWAKUNI VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING PAD NORTH ................. 7,416 7,416 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 BUILDING ADDITION ......... 33,498 33,498 Navy NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA BASE ACCESS AND ROAD—PHASE 3 ................................. 40,904 40,904 Navy NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA STAFF NCO ACADEMY FACILITIES ....................................... 28,986 28,986 Navy NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE CORPS 

AIR STATION 

ARMORY .............................................................................. 11,581 11,581 

Navy NORTH CAROLINA CHERRY POINT MARINE CORPS 

AIR STATION 

MARINE AIR SUPPORT SQUADRON COMPOUND .................. 34,310 34,310 

Navy NORTH CAROLINA NEW RIVER PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION CENTER ............................... 8,525 8,525 Navy ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA AEGIS ASHORE MISSILE DEFENSE COMPLEX ...................... 45,205 45,205 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE HANGAR ...................................... 42,010 42,010 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT AIRFIELD SECURITY UPGRADES .......................................... 13,675 13,675 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
483 

Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT SHOP ................................ 9,465 9,465 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT RECYCLING/HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY .......................... 3,743 3,743 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT SIMULATED LHD FLIGHT DECK ............................................ 12,887 12,887 Navy SOUTH CAROLINA PARRIS ISLAND FRONT GATE ATFP IMPROVEMENTS .................................... 10,135 10,135 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 TRAINING FACILITY .......... 16,494 16,494 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 DISTRIBUTION UPGRADE ............ 32,706 32,706 Navy VIRGINIA QUANTICO INFRASTRUTURE—WIDEN RUSSELL ROAD ......................... 14,826 14,826 Navy VIRGINIA QUANTICO THE BASIC SCHOOL STUDENT QUARTERS—PHASE 7 ........ 31,012 31,012 Navy VIRGINIA QUANTICO WEAPONS TRAINING BATTALION MESS HALL ...................... 12,876 12,876 Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN ARMORY .............................................................................. 4,259 4,259 Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS ........................................ 18,422 18,422 Navy VIRGINIA YORKTOWN MOTOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITY .................................... 6,188 6,188 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 #2 (INC) ............................ 280,041 280,041 Navy WASHINGTON WHIDBEY ISLAND EA–18G FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY ................................ 6,272 6,272 Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MCON DESIGN FUNDS ......................................................... 102,619 102,619 

Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 16,535 16,535 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 ADDITION ................................ 4,178 4,178 AF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK AFB C–130J FUEL SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE HANGAR ................ 26,000 26,000 AF FLORIDA TYNDALL AFB F–22 ADAL HANGAR FOR LOW OBSERVABLE/COMPOSITE .. 14,750 14,750 AF GEORGIA FORT STEWART, GEORGIA AIR SUPPORT OPERATIONS CENTER (ASOC) ....................... 7,250 7,250 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
484 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

AF GEORGIA MOODY AFB HC–130J SIMULATOR FACILITY ........................................... 8,500 8,500 AF GREENLAND THULE AB CONSOLIDATED ENGINEER SHOP AND SUPPLY FACILITY .... 0 0 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 CENTER ....................................... 9,400 9,400 AF NEBRASKA OFFUTT AFB US STRATCOM REPLACEMENT FACILITY, INCR 2 ................ 161,000 161,000 AF NEW MEXICO HOLLOMAN AFB MQ–9 MAINTENANCE HANGAR ............................................ 25,000 25,000 AF NORTH DAKOTA MINOT AFB B–52 ADD/ALTER MUNITIONS AGE FACILITY ...................... 4,600 4,600 AF TEXAS JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO DORMITORY (144 RM) ........................................................ 18,000 18,000 AF UTAH HILL AFB F–35 ADAL BUILDING 118 FOR FLIGHT SIMULATOR ........... 4,000 4,000 AF UTAH HILL AFB F–35 ADAL HANGAR 45W/AMU ........................................... 7,250 7,250 AF UTAH HILL AFB F–35 MODULAR STORAGE MAGAZINES ............................... 2,280 2,280 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 18,635 18,635 

AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS SANITARY SEWER LIFT/PUMP STATION ............................... 2,000 2,000 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT HANGARS ......................................... 15,032 15,032 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS TRANSIENT CONTINGENCY DORMITORY—100 RM ............. 17,625 17,625 AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 18,200 18,200 

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/DYNAMIC SHOOT FAC ...... 13,969 13,969 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
485 

Def-Wide CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF INDOOR DYNAMIC SHOOTING FACILITY ....................... 31,170 31,170 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA CORONADO SOF MOBILE COMM DETACHMENT SUPPORT FACILITY ....... 10,120 10,120 Def-Wide CALIFORNIA DEF FUEL SUPPORT POINT—SAN 

DIEGO 

REPLACE FUEL PIER ........................................................... 91,563 91,563 

Def-Wide CALIFORNIA EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE REPLACE FUEL STORAGE .................................................... 27,500 27,500 

Def-Wide CALIFORNIA TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT ......................................... 27,400 27,400 Def-Wide COLORADO BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE DENVER POWER HOUSE ...................................................... 30,000 30,000 Def-Wide COLORADO FORT CARSON, COLORADO SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS COMPLEX ............................. 56,673 56,673 Def-Wide COLORADO PIKES PEAK HIGH ALTITUDE MEDICAL RESEARCH LAB .......................... 3,600 3,600 Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED LOCATION SOF PARACHUTE TRAINING FACILITY .................................. 6,477 6,477 Def-Wide DELAWARE DOVER AFB REPLACE TRUCK OFF-LOAD FACILITY ................................. 2,000 2,000 Def-Wide FLORIDA EGLIN AFB SOF AVFID OPS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES ................. 41,695 41,695 Def-Wide FLORIDA HURLBURT FIELD CONSTRUCT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY ................................ 16,000 16,000 Def-Wide FLORIDA MACDILL AFB SOF JOINT SPECIAL OPS UNIVERSITY FAC (JSOU) .............. 34,409 34,409 Def-Wide GERMANY RHINE ORDNANCE BARRACKS MEDICAL CENTER REPLACEMENT INCR 2 .......................... 127,000 127,000 Def-Wide GERMANY STUTTGART-PATCH BARRACKS DISA EUROPE FACILITY UPGRADES ..................................... 2,413 2,413 Def-Wide GERMANY VOGELWEH REPLACE VOGELWEH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ...................... 61,415 61,415 Def-Wide GERMANY WEISBADEN WEISBADEN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION ................................. 52,178 52,178 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 HARBORHICKAM SOF SDVT–1 WATERFRONT OPERATIONS FACILITY ............. 24,289 24,289 

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 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ......... 71,773 71,773 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
486 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

Def-Wide JAPAN SASEBO REPLACE SASEBO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ........................... 35,733 35,733 Def-Wide JAPAN ZUKERAN REPLACE ZUKERAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ......................... 79,036 79,036 Def-Wide KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY REPLACE BARKLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ......................... 41,767 41,767 Def-Wide KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF GROUND SUPPORT BATTALION .................................... 26,313 26,313 Def-Wide KENTUCKY FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY SOF LANDGRAF HANGAR EXTENSION .................................. 3,559 3,559 Def-Wide KOREA KUNSAN AIR BASE MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC ADDITION .................................... 13,000 13,000 Def-Wide KOREA OSAN AFB HOSPITAL ADDITION/ALTERATION ........................................ 34,600 34,600 Def-Wide KOREA OSAN AFB REPLACE OSAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ............................... 42,692 42,692 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./APPEARANCE PLAN .............. 7,000 7,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL ELECTRICAL CAPACITY AND COOLING TOWERS .................. 35,600 35,600 Def-Wide MARYLAND BETHESDA NAVAL HOSPITAL TEMPORARY MEDICAL FACILITIES ....................................... 26,600 26,600 Def-Wide MARYLAND FORT DETRICK USAMRIID STAGE I, INCR 7 ................................................ 19,000 19,000 Def-Wide MARYLAND FORT MEADE HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING CENTER INC 2 .............. 300,521 300,521 Def-Wide MARYLAND FORT MEADE NSAW RECAPITALIZE BUILDING #1/SITE M INC 1 .............. 25,000 25,000 Def-Wide MISSOURI FORT LEONARD WOOD DENTAL CLINIC .................................................................... 18,100 18,100 Def-Wide NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC REPALCEMENT ............................ 71,023 71,023 Def-Wide NEW MEXICO CANNON AFB SOF AC–130J COMBAT PARKING APRON ............................ 22,062 22,062 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 CLINIC ...................................... 17,300 17,300 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT ......................................... 21,200 21,200 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA SOF MARINE BATTALION COMPANY/TEAM FACILITIES ......... 53,399 53,399 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA SOF SURVIVAL EVASION RESIST. ESCAPE TNG FAC ........... 5,465 5,465 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS FACILITY ............................... 40,481 40,481 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF CIVIL AFFAIRS BATTALION COMPLEX ........................... 31,373 31,373 Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF SUPPORT ADDITION ..................................................... 3,875 3,875 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
487 

Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA FORT BRAGG SOF SUSTAINMENT BRIGADE COMPLEX .............................. 24,693 24,693 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 

CUMBERLAND 

REPLACE COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING .............................. 6,800 6,800 

Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA DEF DISTRIBUTION DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

REPLACE RESERVOIR .......................................................... 4,300 4,300 

Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA DEF DISTRIBUTION DEPOT NEW 

CUMBERLAND 

REPLACE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ................................ 6,300 6,300 

Def-Wide ROMANIA DEVESELU, ROMANIA AEGIS ASHORE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM COMPLEX ........ 157,900 –75,000 82,900 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 PHASE 3 INCR ...................... 80,700 80,700 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 3,795Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM MENWITH HILL STATION REPLACE MENWITH HILL ELEMENTARY/HIGH SCHOOL ....... 46,488 46,488 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM RAF FELTWELL FELTWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION ....................... 30,811 30,811 Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM RAF MILDENHALL SOF CV–22 SIMULATOR FACILITY ....................................... 6,490 6,490 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 LITTLE 

CREEK—STORY 

SOF COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT FACILITY—EAST ........... 11,132 11,132 

Def-Wide VIRGINIA NORFOLK VETERINARY FACILITY REPLACEMENT ................................. 8,500 8,500 Def-Wide WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF BATTALION OPERATIONS FACILITY ............................... 46,553 46,553 Def-Wide WASHINGTON FORT LEWIS SOF MILITARY WORKING DOG KENNEL ............................... 3,967 3,967 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 10,000 –10,000 0 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............... 150,000 150,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS EXERCISE RELATED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ....................... 6,440 6,440 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
488 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MINOR CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 5,000 5,000 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING & DESIGN ........................................................... 5,000 5,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 7,928 7,928 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 105,700 105,700 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 27,620 27,620 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 8,300 8,300 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 47,978 47,978 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 105,569 105,569 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 2,919 2,919 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 4,548 4,548 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS SOF OPERATIONS AND SKILLS TRAINING COMPLEX ............ 0 0 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONST ............................................... 10,000 10,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 7,254 7,254 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
489 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 4,091 4,091 

Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 3,000 3,000 Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR MILCON ............................................. 3,000 3,000 

Total Military Construction, Defense-Wide 3,654,623 –85,000 3,569,623 

Chem Demil COLORADO PUEBLO DEPOT AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION FACILITY, PH XIV ............. 36,000 36,000 Chem Demil KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION PH XIII ............................. 115,000 115,000 

Total Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense 151,000 0 151,000 

NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PRO- GRAM NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................ 254,163 254,163 

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 & EQUIPMENT SITE PH3 ........ 25,000 25,000 Army NG CONNECTICUT CAMP HARTELL COMBINED SUPPORT MAINTENANCE SHOP ......................... 32,000 32,000 Army NG DELAWARE BETHANY BEACH REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE PH1 ................................... 5,500 5,500 Army NG FLORIDA CAMP BLANDING COMBINED ARMS COLLECTIVE TRAINING FAC .................... 9,000 9,000 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 FACILITY PH1 ............................ 28,000 28,000 Army NG IDAHO ORCHARD TRAINIG AREA ORTC(BARRACKS)PH2 ......................................................... 40,000 40,000 Army NG INDIANA SOUTH BEND ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER ADD/ALT ...................... 21,000 21,000 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 ALTERATIONS .......................... 9,500 9,500 Army NG KENTUCKY FRANKFORT ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY .................................... 32,000 32,000 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
490 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

Army NG MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS GROUND WATER EXTRACTION, TREATMENT, AND RECHARGE SYSTEM. 0 0 Army NG MASSACHUSETTS CAMP EDWARDS UNIT TRAINING EQUIPMENT SITE ........................................ 22,000 22,000 Army NG MICHIGAN CAMP GRAYLING OPERATIONAL READINESS TRAINING COMPLEX (ORTC) 

BARRACKS.

0 0 

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 PH1 .............................. 24,000 24,000 Army NG OHIO CHILLICOTHE FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP ADD/ALT .................................. 3,100 3,100 Army NG OHIO DELAWARE READINESS CENTER ............................................................ 12,000 12,000 Army NG OKLAHOMA CAMP GRUBER OPERATIONS READINESS TRAINING COMPLEX .................... 25,000 25,000 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 TRAINING INSTITUTE) ................. 15,000 15,000 Army NG UTAH CAMP WILLIAMS REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE PH2 ................................... 21,000 21,000 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
491 

Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 26,622 26,622 

Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 15,057 15,057 

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 21,000Army Res MARYLAND BALTIMORE ADD/ALT ARMY RESERVE CENTER ...................................... 10,000 10,000 Army Res MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA AUTOMATIC RECORD FIRE RANGE ...................................... 4,800 4,800 

Army Res MASSACHUSETTS DEVENS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA COMBAT PISTOL/MP FIREARMS QUALIFICATION .................. 3,700 3,700 Army Res NEVADA LAS VEGAS ARMY RESERVE CENTER/AMSA ........................................... 21,000 21,000 Army Res NEW JERSEY JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST AUTOMATED INFANTRY SQUAD BATTLE COURSE ................ 7,400 7,400 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. FACILTY (TEMF) ................... 27,000 27,000 Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 15,951 15,951 

Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 10,895 10,895 

Total Military Construction, Army Reserve 305,846 0 305,846 

N/MC Res ARIZONA YUMA RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY—YUMA AZ ........................... 5,379 5,379 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
492 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

N/MC Res IOWA FORT DES MOINES JOINT RESERVE CENTER—DES MOINES IA ........................ 19,162 19,162 N/MC Res LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS TRANSIENT QUARTERS ........................................................ 7,187 7,187 N/MC Res NEW YORK BROOKLYN VEHICLE MAINT. FAC.—BROOKLYN NY .............................. 4,430 4,430 N/MC Res TEXAS FORT WORTH COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION SITE ........................... 11,256 11,256 N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 2,118 2,118 

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 HARBORHICKAM TFI—F–22 COMBAT APRON ADDITION ............................... 6,500 6,500 

Air NG NEW MEXICO KIRTLAND AFB ALTER TARGET INTELLIGENCE FACILITY .............................. 8,500 8,500 Air NG TENNESSEE MCGHEE-TYSON AIRPORT DORMITORY CLASSROOM FACILITY ..................................... 0 0 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 4,000 4,000 Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED VARIOUS WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION ................................. 5,900 5,900 Air NG WYOMING CHEYENNE MAP C–130 FLIGHT SIMULATOR TRAINING FACILITY .................. 6,486 6,486 

Total Military Construction, Air National Guard 42,386 0 42,386 

AF Res CALIFORNIA MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE JOINT REGIONAL DEPLOYMENT PROCESSING CENTER ........ 0 0 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 CONSTRUTION ................................... 2,000 2,000 

Total Military Construction, Air Force Reserve 10,979 0 10,979 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
493 

FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FAMILY HOUSING P&D ........................................................ 4,641 4,641 

Total Family Housing Construction, Army 4,641 0 4,641 

FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT ...................................................... 31,785 31,785 

FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS LEASING .............................................................................. 203,533 203,533 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY .................................... 109,534 109,534 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ..................................................... 56,970 56,970 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT ................................................. 620 620 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS ......................................... 26,010 26,010 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS SERVICES ACCOUNT ............................................................ 13,487 13,487 FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UTILITIES ACCOUNT ............................................................. 88,112 88,112 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Army 530,051 0 530,051 

FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 79,571 79,571 FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PLANNING AND DESIGN ....................................................... 4,253 4,253 

Total Family Housing Construction, Air Force 83,824 0 83,824 

FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT ...................................................... 37,878 37,878 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
494 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS HOUSING PRIVATIZATION ..................................................... 46,127 46,127 

FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS LEASING .............................................................................. 62,730 62,730 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MAINTENANCE (RPMA RPMC) ............................................. 201,937 201,937 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ..................................................... 55,002 55,002 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT ................................................. 1,943 1,943 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS SERVICES ACCOUNT ............................................................ 16,550 16,550 FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UTILITIES ACCOUNT ............................................................. 75,662 75,662 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Air Force 497,829 0 497,829 

FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DESIGN ................................................................................ 4,527 4,527 FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 97,655 97,655 

Total Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps 102,182 0 102,182 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT ...................................................... 17,697 17,697 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS LEASING .............................................................................. 83,774 83,774 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
495 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY .................................... 85,254 85,254 

FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ..................................................... 62,741 62,741 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT ................................................. 491 491 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT COSTS ......................................... 27,798 27,798 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS SERVICES ACCOUNT ............................................................ 19,615 19,615 FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UTILITIES ACCOUNT ............................................................. 80,860 80,860 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps 378,230 0 378,230 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT ...................................................... 4,660 4,660 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT ...................................................... 66 66 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT ...................................................... 20 20 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS LEASING .............................................................................. 35,333 35,333 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS LEASING .............................................................................. 10,822 10,822 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY .................................... 567 567 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MAINTENANCE OF REAL PROPERTY .................................... 73 73 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ..................................................... 371 371 FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS SERVICES ACCOUNT ............................................................ 31 31 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
496 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UTILITIES ACCOUNT ............................................................. 283 283 

FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS UTILITIES ACCOUNT ............................................................. 12 12 

Total Family Housing Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide 52,238 0 52,238 

FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND .............................. 1,786 1,786 

Total DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund 1,786 0 1,786 

BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS COMM ADD 3: GALENA FOL, AK .......................................... 1,337 1,337 

BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–100: PLANING, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ............... 5,038 5,038 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–101: VARIOUS LOCATIONS ......................................... 4,176 4,176 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–138: NAS BRUNSWICK, ME ........................................ 4,897 4,897 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–157: MCSA KANSAS CITY, MO ................................... 39 39 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–168: NS NEWPORT, RI ............................................... 1,742 1,742 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–172: NWS SEAL BEACH, CONCORD, CA ..................... 2,129 2,129 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS DON–84: JRB WILLOW GROVE & CAMBRIA REG AP ........... 189 189 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
497 

BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IND–106: KANSAS ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, KS ............. 7,280 7,280 

BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IND–110: MISSISSIPPI ARMY AMMO PLANT, MS ................ 160 160 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IND–112: RIVER BANK ARMY AMMO PLANT, CA ................ 22,431 22,431 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IND–119: NEWPORT CHEMICAL DEPOT, IN ......................... 197 197 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS IND–122: LONE STAR ARMY AMMO PLANT, TX .................. 11,379 11,379 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MED–2: WALTER REED NMMC, BETHESDA, MD ................. 7,787 7,787 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS MED–57: BROOKS CITY BASE, TX ...................................... 326 326 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS LOCATIONS .................. 20,453 20,453 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT VARIOUS LOCATIONS .................. 605 605 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–113: FORT MONROE, VA ............................................. 12,184 12,184 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–121: FORT GILLEM, GA ............................................... 4,976 4,976 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–167: USAR COMMAND AND CONTROL—NE ............... 175 175 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–212: USAR CMD & CNTRL—NEW ENGLAND .............. 222 222 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–222: FORT MCPHERSON, GA ...................................... 6,772 6,772 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–223: FORT MONMOUTH, NJ ......................................... 9,989 9,989 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–236: RC TRANSFORMATION IN CT .............................. 557 557 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
498 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House Agreement 

BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–242: RC TRANSFORMATION IN NY .............................. 172 172 

BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–253: RC TRANSFORMATION IN PA .............................. 100 100 BRAC 05 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS USA–36: RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT ..................................... 1,385 1,385 

Total Base Realignment and Closure Account 2005 126,697 0 126,697 

BRAC IV WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE, AIR FORCE BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ....................................... 122,552 122,552 BRAC IV WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE, ARMY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ....................................... 79,893 79,893 BRAC IV WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE, NAVY BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE ....................................... 146,951 146,951 

Total Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990 349,396 0 349,396 

PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS BRAC 2005 ......................................................................... 0 –126,697 –126,697 PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 0 –20,000 –20,000 

Total Prior Year Savings 0 –146,697 –146,697 

Total Military Construction 11,222,710 –384,518 10,838,192 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
499 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request House Change House 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 WORK UNITS ......................... 0 7,510 7,510 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI FITNESS CENTER ................................................................. 0 26,960 26,960 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI GALLEY ADDITION AND WAREHOUSE .................................. 0 22,220 22,220 Navy DJIBOUTI CAMP LEMONIER, DJIBOUTI JOINT HQ/JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER FACILITY ................. 0 42,730 42,730 

Total Military Construction, Navy 0 150,768 150,768 

PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCA- TIONS 112–10 AND TITLE IV OF DIVISION H P.L. 112–74 ............ 0 –150,768 –150,768 

Total Prior Year Savings 0 –150,768 –150,768 

Total Military Construction 0 0 0 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
500 

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) 

Program FY 2013 Request House Change House 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
501 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
502 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 plasmas ..................................................................................... 8,334 8,334 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 264,691 264,691 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
503 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield campaign ....................................................................................... 460,000 –10,000 450,000 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/LLNL ..................................................................................... 23,000 23,000 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 National security complex, Oakridge, TN ................................ 17,909 17,909 09–D–404 Test capabilities revitalization II, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM ........................... 11,332 11,332 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
504 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

08–D–802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ................................................................. 24,800 24,800 06–D–141 PED/Construction, UPF Y–12 , Oak Ridge, TN ...................................................................................... 340,000 340,000 04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 100,000 100,000 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
505 

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, Savannah River, SC .......................................................... 388,802 388,802 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
506 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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, KSO .......................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 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 discharge station, Naval Reactor Facility, ID ............................ 5,700 5,700 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
507 

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 Unit ............................................................................................ 24,000 24,000 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
508 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

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 disposition ................................................................................. 698,294 698,294 Construction: 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .......................................................................... 22,549 22,549 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
509 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
510 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2013 Request House Change House Authorized 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 735,702 –50,000 685,702 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
511 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
512 

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’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
513 

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: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
514 

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 Officer Required for 

Voluntary Retirement as an 

Officer ................................. 4.6 13.1 15.5 14.2 14.3 12.8 6.4 ¥2.5 ¥6.5 ¥6.7 

Time-in-Grade Retirement 

WaiverLimitation for Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels in Army, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps, and Commanders and Captains in 

Navy .................................... 23.7 47.1 45.0 42.8 40.5 13.0 ¥14.3 ¥14.7 ¥15.2 ¥15.6 

Number of Officers for Whom 

Service-in-Grade Requirements May Be Reduced for 

Retirement in Grade Upon 

Voluntary Retirement Upon 

Voluntary Retirement .......... 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 ¥0.2 ¥0.2 ¥0.2 ¥0.2 

Force Management Enhancements—Subsec. (a) (Enhanced Selective Early Retirement Boards and Early 

Discharges) ......................... 3.9 31.3 70.2 90.2 102.5 79.4 29.2 5.2 ¥15.3 ¥31.8 

Force Management Enhancements—Subsec. (b) (Reduce Years of Service for 

Mandatory Retirement for 

Certain Officers in Pay 

Grades O–5 and O–6) ........ 0.0 39.3 97.9 87.0 53 .9 35.3 1.1 ¥17.8 ¥18.3 ¥18.8 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
515 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
516 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
517 

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’ AfVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00547 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
518 

fairs 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
519 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
520 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
521 

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 jurisdicVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00551 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
522 

tion. 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
523 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
524 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
525 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
526 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
527 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
528 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
529 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
530 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
531 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
532 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
533 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
534 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
535 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
536 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
537 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
538 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
539 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
540 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
541 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
542 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
543 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
544 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
545 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
546 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
547 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
548 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
549 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
550 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
551 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
552 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
553 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
554 

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. Ruppersberger X 

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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
555 

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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(556) 

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 FebVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00586 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
557 

ruary 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(558) 

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 LaboraVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:23 May 13, 2012 Jkt 074128 PO 00000 Frm 00588 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR479.XXX HR479

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
559 

tory 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. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING